West Bengal

Maldah

CC/32/2020

Serajul Islam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Authorised Officer, L & T Construction Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Debabrata Mandal

13 Jan 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MALDAH
Satya Chowdhury Indoor Stadium,DSA Complex.
PO. Dist.- Maldah
Web site - confonet.nic.in
Phone Number - 03512-223582
 
Complaint Case No. CC/32/2020
( Date of Filing : 27 Nov 2020 )
 
1. Serajul Islam
S/o Late Afajuddin, Vill.- Satghoria, PO.-Budhia, PS.-English Bazar,
Malda-732128,
West Bengal
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Authorised Officer, L & T Construction Ltd.
DG Block (New Town), Action Area-I, New Town,
Kolkata-700156,
West Bengal
2. Authorised Officer, Larsen & Toubro Construction Ltd.
11th Floor, Tower-2, DP-5, Sector-V, Salt Lake City,
Kolkata-700091,
West Bengal
3. The Manager / Authorised Officer, Larsen & Toubro Construction Ltd.,
PB No.-979, Mount-Poonamallee Road, Manapakkam,
Chennai-600089,
Taminladu
4. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh
Branch Manager, Larsen & Toubro Construction Ltd., Near Radio Station Masjid Gali, Gm Road,
Darbhanga-846004,
Bihar
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Swapan Kumar Datta PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Syeda Shahnur Ali MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Manas Banik MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Debabrata Mandal, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 
Dated : 13 Jan 2021
Final Order / Judgement

Today is fixed for admission hearing.

Heard the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant.

Perused the petition of complaint.

Order is passed accordingly.

Ld.Lawyer of the complainant submits that the complainant’s bill was not realized to the tune of Rs. 2,94,137/- (Rupees Two Lakh Ninety Four Thousand One Hundred Thirty Seven Only) for which he has come to this Forum now Commission.

Now the main point is to be considered whether the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ or not.

The petitioner was appointed as a vendor by the then Branch Manager of L & T Construction Ltd. to erect cable tower from tower to tower.

 When the question of appointment is involved as such raising of bill or non-supplying the bill completely comes under a contract for which the proper remedy is lying with the Civil Court as such the petitioner is not a ‘Consumer’ under the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  

So the instant petition is not maintainable in this Forum. Hence, the petition is not required to be admitted.

Hence, ordered that

the petition is not admitted and the same is rejected.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Swapan Kumar Datta]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Syeda Shahnur Ali]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Manas Banik]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.