BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 320/2004 Filed on 13.08.2004<br /> Dated : 16.06.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> B. Thulaseedharan, Director, Naimisharanyam, Hill Top, Kudappanakunnu, Thiruvananthapuram – 43. <br /> Opposite party:<br /> Brother Jacob Koraikkal, O.C.D Manager, St. Joseph’s Press, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram – 14. <br /> (By adv. R. Lekshmana Iyer)<br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 31.05.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 09.05.2008, the Forum on 16.06.2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER<br /> <br /> B. Thulaseedharan, Director, Naimisharanyam Trust is the complainant. Brother Jacob Koraikkal, Manager, St. Joseph’s Press, Vazhuthacaud is the opposite party. <br /> Complainant’s case is as follows: On 19.05.2003 he placed an order with the opposite party to print 500 booklets detailing the projects of ‘Naimisharanyam’. For this Rs. 1000/- was given as advance out of the total Rs. 3000/-. It was assured that the booklet will be delivered within two weeks. So on 10.06.2003 the complainant went for taking delivery. But to his utter dismay, the work was not yet started and they demanded Rs. 1000/- more as advance. That amount was also paid, and he was asked to come on 20.06.2003 to take delivery. But the booklet was not yet delivered. So he send a registered notice on 08.07.2003 to the opposite party, for which he got a reply on 09.07.2003. Again a registered notice was sent on 15.07.2003. Since there was no positive response, he filed this complaint claiming for refund of the amount of Rs. 2000/- he paid as advance, along with compensation for mental agony. <br /> Opposite party entered appearance and filed version. He contended as follows: The complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Act and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is true that the complainant approached them for printing 500 booklets with certain specifications as detailed in the invoice issued by them. The total cost of the work was Rs. 3000/- and an amount of Rs. 2000/- was received from the complainant as advance. The proof of the matter to be printed was given to the complainant at three occasions at the instance of the complainant. After going through the proof given by the opposite party on 10.06.2003 complainant finalized the matter and the opposite party agreed to finish and hand over the matter in time. But even after repeated requests neither the complainant nor his agent approached the opposite party to receive the completed work and cared to pay the balance amount. <br /> It is true that they received a letter dated 08.07.2003 from the complainant for which reply was given on the very next day. Again on 15.07.2003 they received another letter from the complainant, which was replied on 19.07.2003, reiterating the actual position and requesting them to make the balance payment immediately and take delivery of the printed books. To the said letter also there was no action from the side of the complainant to take delivery of the printed matter. Immediately after this, the present petition was filed before this Forum. The opposite party was ready to hand over the same after receiving the balance amount due from the complainant at any moment. So the complaint lacks merits and is to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party.<br /> Complainant has been examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P9 were marked from their side. Opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. D1 to D3 were marked from their side. <br /> Perused the documents and heard the parties. The following issues are raised for consideration:- <br /> (i)Whether the complainant is a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act?<br /> (ii)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> (iii)Reliefs and costs.<br /> Point No.(i):- The complaint has been filed by one B. Thulaseedharan, Director, Naimisharanyam Trust. He had entrusted the opposite party for printing 500 booklets containing the functions and objectives of the Trust by paying an amount of Rs. 1000/- as advance. Since the booklets were not printed and given to the complainant in time, this complaint has been filed. We perused the records. Ext. P1 and P2 are the receipts proving the payment of Rs. 2000/-. Ext. P1 is in the name of the complainant and Ext. P2 is in the name of the Director. The complainant has not produced any records before this Forum showing that he is the Director of the said Trust and he has been authorized to represent and file the complaint for and on behalf of the said Trust. Moreover, as per Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, a consumer means any person who (ii) 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 payment, when such services 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;.<br /> The opposite party's counsel had put a specific question to PW1 that (1) നിങ്ങളുടെ ഉദ്ദേശലക്ഷൃം സാക്ഷാത്കരിക്കാന്‍ സേവനം നല്‍കുന്നവരില്‍ നിന്നും തുക മേടിക്കാറുണ്ടോ? (Q) ഉണ്ട്. അതിന് receipt കൊടുക്കാറുണ്ട്. (A). There is no pleading as to purpose of self employment or livelihood in the complaint. It is not the value of the goods that matter but the purpose to which the goods bought are put to. The complainant had entrusted the printing of booklets not for use in some venture for self employment for earning livelihood but the printing work was given for trading activity carried on for profit. Considering the above said circumstance it is to be concluded that, the booklets given for printing by the said Trust for their use were meant for commercial purpose. The complaint has to be based on consumer dispute. It is not clear to us as to how it would be said that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties. Complainant as PW1 has admitted that the service rendered by the Trust is not a free service. For the foregoing reasons it is found that the complainant is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act. In the above said circumstance, other points require no consideration.<br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.<br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 16th June 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> O.P.No. 320/2004<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> PW1 – B. Thulaseedharan<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> P1 - Photocopy of receipt No. 497 dated 19.05.2003 for Rs. 1000/- <br /> P2 - Photocopy of receipt No. 576 dated 10.06.2003 for Rs. 1000/-<br /> P2 - Booklet of Naimisharanyam.<br /> P4 - Photocopy of letter dated 08.07.03 issued to the opposite party by the complainant.<br /> P5 - Photocopy of reply letter dated 09.07.03 issued to the complainant by the opposite party. <br /> P6 - Photocopy of Work Order No. 2759 dated 10.06.2003 with an amount of Rs. 3000/-. <br /> P7 - Original invoice card duplicate with invoice No. 34243 dated 09.07.2003.<br /> P8 - Photocopy of letter dated 15.07.2003 issued by the complainant. <br /> P9 - Photocopy of letter dated 19.07.2003 issued to the opposite party. <br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :<br /> <br /> DW1 - Brother Jacob<br /> <br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> D1 - Photocopy of statement showing their major orders being executed. <br /> D2 - Photocopy of statement showing the memorandum of equipments and machineries. <br /> D3 - Photocopy of statement showing the awards for excellence in printing. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br />