O R D E R<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> <br /> Case of the petitioner’s is as follows:<br /> Petitioner purchased a stage carriage bus bearing No. KL-5 F 4352 for his livelihood. Petitioner purchased the said bus from the 5th opposite party. The ownership<br /> <br /> -2-<br /> was transferred with effect from 1..3..2004. The petitioner is paying tax, insurance and all other payments, due under the law, for the time being in force. Petitioner is also paying payment to the 4th opposite party the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund. According to the petitioner since he is making payments to the government and insurance company and to the 4th opposite party for availing service. The income from the said business, according to the petitioner, is his only source of livelihood. So, he is a consumer of the opposite party 1 to 4. The vehicle was transferred in the name of the petitioner only on 1..3..2004 but the 4th opposite party is trying to recover the dues for the period 96-97, 97-98 and 98-2001. The petitioner states that the act of the opposite party 2 and 3 to recover previous dues is illegal, malafide and is a clear case of deficiency in service. The petitioner states that the opposite parties are attempting to recover the amount due to them from the 5th opposite party by seizing the vehicle. So the petitioner prays for a declaration that the 5th opposite party is liable to pay dues inrespect of Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Funds Scheme for a period from 1996 to 2001 and he pray for a prohibitary injuction from recovering in the dues from the petitioner and his vehicle. He also prays for compensation in the tune of Rs. 10,000/- along with refund of Rs. 25,000/- which the complainant had already remitted to the 5th opposite party.<br /> Opposite party 1 to 4 entered appearance. Even though 5th opposite party entered appearance had not filed any version. So 5th opposite party is set ex-parte. Opposite party 1 to 4 filed version contenting that as per the R.R certificate forwarded by the 4th opposite party a demand notice under section 7 and 34 of the R.R Act was issued against the petitioner and 5th opposite party. Opposite party 1 to 4 initiated R.R proceedings as<br /> <br /> -3-<br /> per law in order to recover the dues towards government. The 4th opposite party filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable before the Forum and the petitioner is not a Consumer as provided under the provisions Consumer Protection Act. The alleged transfer between the petitioner and 5th opposite party is a commercial contract so the petition is not maintainable before this Forum. The opposite party, further contented that as per section 23 of the Kerala Motor Workers Welfare Fund Act no Civil Court have any jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under the said act or the scheme required to be settled decided or dealt with other than the officer empowered under the provisions of the Act. The 4th opposite party further contented that the proceedings are initiated because the petitioner and the 5th opposite party defaulted in payment due to the Motor Workers Welfare Fund. So the opposite party prays for a dismissal of the petition with their cost.<br /> The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala as per order in WPC 22839/08 given the direction to this Forum to consider the maintainability of the petition and to pass orders within one month. So the question of maintainability of the petition has to be decided.<br /> Points for determination:<br /> Whether the petition is maintainable or not?<br /> According to the petitioner since, he is paying Tax, Insurance and other contributions to the government and 4th opposite party for the conduct the bus service. So, he is availing service for consideration. So the petition is maintainable before this Forum. <br /> <br /> <br /> -4-<br /> We are of the opinion that the said contention of the petitioner is not maintainable because as per section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 consumer means any person who:<br /> i) buys any goods for a consideration:<br /> ii) hires or avails of any service for consideration.<br /> The prayer of the petitioner is to declare that 5th opposite party is liable to pay dues towards Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund. As per S. 28 of the Kerala Motor Transport Act 1985. The payment of contribution to the Welfare Fund is a statutory contribution and is not any hiring of service for any consideration. So, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not a consumer as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. So, we are of the opinion that the petition is not maintainable before the Forum hence dismissed.<br /> Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22nd day of August, 2008.