CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PALAKKAD, KERALA
Dated this the 9th day of April, 2012.
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 29/03/2012
CC / 55/2012
K. Narayanan @ Manisilpi,
Aged 52 years,
S/o. Velu Moopan,Karuthodiyil,
S.R.K.Nagar P.O, Krishnambalam Village,
Ottappalam,Palakkad. - Complainant
(By Adv.P.Narayanankutty)
Vs
1. Balakrishnan Nair,
Rep.by President,
Sri Panickanar Sahayam,
Padur Kshethrasamrakshna Samithi,
Padur Desam, Kazhani Amsam,
Alathur Taluk, Palakkad.
2. Balakrishnan Nair,
President, Sri Panickanar Sahayam,
Padur Kshethrasamrakshna Samithi,
Padur Desam, Kazhani Amsam,
Alathur Taluk, Palakkad.
3. Achuthan Nair, Secretary,
Sri Panickanar Sahayam,
Padur Kshethrasamrakshna Samithi,
Padur Desam, Kazhani Amsam,
Alathur Taluk, Palakkad. - Opposite parties
O R D E R
BY SMT. SEENA.H, PRESIDENT
Complaint in brief:
The Crux of the Complaint is that the opposite parties entrusted the working of laying stones around the temple premises to the complainant as per an agreement. But contrary to the agreement opposite parties was not proper in payment of the charges. Complainant has incurred an amount of Rs. 1.25 lakhs from his own hand. Remaining work is possible only on payment of the balance amount from the opposite parties. According to the complainant, the act of opposite parties amounts to restrictive and unfair trade practice and clear deficiency of service. Hence the complaint.
Complaint was posted for hearing on admission. On going through the complaint, it is understood that complainant has not availed any service from the opposite parties, instead opposite parties has hired the services of the complainant. “Consumer Protection Act 2(1)(d)(ii) defines Consumer as a person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose”.
Here we find that complainant has not availed any service from the opposite parties. Hence complainant is not a consumer. Hence without going in to the merits of the case, we dismiss the Complaint.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 9th day of April, 2012
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
