Dtd.28.11.2024                                            A/509/2021

O R D E R

         BY Mr.K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : Pri.Dist & Session Judge (R) - JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1.    This is an appeal filed U/s.41 of CPA 2019 by Complainant/Appellant aggrieved by the order dtd.12.03.2021 passed in CC/1/2021 on the file of Tumakuru District Commission. (Parties to the appeal henceforth are referred to their rank assigned to them by the District Commission).
2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard. Now the point that arise for consideration of this Commission would be

Whether the impugned order dtd.12.03.2021 passed in CC/1/2021 does call for an interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the appeal memo?

3. Appellant herein has raised the consumer complaint before the District Commission and his complaint came to be dismissed at threshold as not admitted on the ground his complaint is in the nature of recovery of money and District Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for recovery of money from the OPs. Learned counsel for Appellant in his appeal memo has stated the decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 1994 (2) CTJ 294 in the case of Dr.C.S.Subramanian vs. Kumarswamy and in 2000 (1) CPR 337, wherein held the person service provider is a consumer entitled to file a complaint. In other words, Complainant admits that he is a service provider and not a consumer suffices to hold such complaint is not maintainable. The District Commission examined the case from all angle has rightly held he is not a consumer within the definition of Sec.2(1)(d) of CPA 1986.
4. Few documents are produced along with appeal memo. They are copy of letter dtd.25.12.2014 of OP.3 placing order for repair of submersible pump, letter dtd.12.07.2017 of Complainant addressed to OP.2 to clear the dues, letter dtd.14.12.2017 issued by OP.1 directing OP.2 to clear the dues. Complainant has also preferred WP/27808/2018(LB-RES) and the Hon’ble High court on 19.08.2019 in para 4 held “it is not in dispute that the petitioner has given representation on 12.07.2017 to the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat and disposed of the writ with a direction to the Appellant herein to submit an additional representation along with the copy of writ order within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and nowhere directed Appellant herein either to approach  Civil court or any proper forum” and in such circumstances, the subject matter which Complainant in his complaint has stated could not be examined under CPA was rightly dealt by DF. In our view, Respondents/OPs being government establishment represented by government  officers who are public servants are answerable to their higher authority and for any reasons are wilfully making any delay in taking decision, complainant is at liberty to approach Karnataka Lokayuktha to get redress his grievances under the provisions of Karnataka Lokayuktha. In such conclusion, we did not find any errors committed by the DF in dismissing the complaint as not maintainable. Hence we proceed to dismiss the appeal, accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.
5. Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.

   Lady Member                                Judicial Member               

*NS*