Heard learned counsel for both the sides.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                      The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant  is the owner of one Trekker bearing No.OR-02-9325.  It is alleged inter-alia that the vehicle was engaged by the OP No.2 on the condition that the cost of transportation would be fixed at Rs.35/- paise per KM. The vehicle was used for covering  a distance of 20,008 Km.  starting from 1.8.2004 to 30.11.2004 daily covering 164 Km. The vehicle was used  from 4.6.2005 to 31.07.2005. It is alleged that  the rate of contract was enhanced. The rate of diesel  was also  enhanced  by 0.69 paise. The complainant made complaint  for payment of differential amount but it was not paid. Therefore, the complaint was filed.

4.            The  OPs    filed their  written version  jointly stating that the complainant is not a consumer. It is admitted fact that the complainant made agreement  with Dhenkanal District Mill Union Ltd. for collection   of the raw milk.  They have decided  to use the vehicle  of the complainant. The transport charges was fixed  by the G.M. but the  complainant raised  dispute , the rate was fixed  at Rs.3.35 paise per  KM. Since, there is no agreement and the OP is a Co-operative Organization, the complainant was  not paid  the differential amount. However,  the entire bill amount  from April,2005 to 09.03.2006 was paid  to  the complainant by  the OP. But  the vehicle was withdrawn from the market. Therefore,  the Ops have not committed any deficiency in service on their part.

5.                       After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum   passed the following order:-

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                              “That, the complaint petition is allowed on contest without cost. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the arrear dues of Rs.25,011.64(Rupees Twenty five thousand eleven and paise sixty four) and Rs.90,353.42(Rupees Ninty thousand three hundred fifty three and paise fourty two) to the  complainant. In addition to that Ops are also to pay compensation of Rs.20,000.00 (Rupees twenty thousand) to the complainant for their deficiency of service.  All these payments are to be made within 3 months from the date of this order. Parties are to bear their own cost.”

6.            Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the matter is a Civil dispute and the OP No.2 – appellant has no agreement executed  with  the complainant inspite of fact that the complainant insists for payment of dues. Once the dues has been paid and the complainant has received same, no further cause of action arose to pay the money. Therefore, he  submitted  to set-aside the impugned order by allowing  the appeal.

7.                      Considered the submission  of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.       

8.                   It is admitted fact that  the complainant has engaged his vehicle for transport  of the milk product as per  agreement filed. It appears from the agreement that  the OP admitted about the engagement of the complainant’s vehicle. There is also endorsement in the agreement that hire charges has to be  paid. There was agreement for providing vehicle as per the written version, it is stated that they have already made payment . In support of that they have already produced the list of payment of Rs.1,79,966.92. The complainant has got duty to show the non-payment of differential amount.  But not a single document is filed to prove his grievance. The evidence of OP no.1 shows that a log book is maintained for showing the movement of the vehicle. He stated that no agreement executed by the complainant.

9.          In view  of above discussion, whether the agreement executed by the OP No.2  with  the complainant or by OP No.1 with the complainant but the fact remains that the complainant’s vehicle was engaged for transport. The complainant has not proved any document to prove  the rest payment to be  made by the OP. On the otherhand, the OP No.1 filed the evidence affidavit and written version   which clearly showed  that the payment has been already made. Hence, we do not find any deficiency in service proved by the complainant against the OP.

10.            In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside and it is set-aside.

                 Appeal stands allowed. No cost.

                 Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.   

                 DFR be sent back forthwith.