Heard both sides. The case of the complainant is that he is a consumer under the self employment scheme formulated by KSRTC/OP which is called as “pay and park scheme” infront of KSRTC Bus stand shopping complex, Kannur. This is in connection with parking of private vehicles within the area in front of shopping complex that belongs to KSRTC. He was obtained licence from KSRTC for one year period from 14.06.2010 to 13.06.2011 by giving consideration that has been fixed by OP/KSRTC. He has also deposited amount as earnest money which is returnable after the expiry of licence period. OP did not locate the area specifically demarking for the purpose of parking which was promised to do. Since the area was not demarked complainant could not collect the charge. As a matter fact people those who are parking the vehicle are not ready to give the money on the reason that the area was not demarked for this purpose. Hence he sustained loss thereby and all his attempts before opposite party and also before govt., failed miserably. Hence this complaint for the relief.
From the very outset it is necessary to discuss and decide the question of law with regard to the maintainability of complaint, without which it is not possible to go deep into other questions involved in the subject matter. Whether or not the complainant is a consumer and the complaint is maintainable are the questions to be answered first of all.
The complainant actually obtained licence from OP/KSTRC for the purpose of utilizing the property of land that belongs to opposite party, allowing for the vehicle owners to find a place to park their vehicles. The vehicle owners are the actual consumers those who are availing service on payment. Complainant’s place is in between the consumer and the opposite party. Complainant did not avail any service from opposite party. Under licence he is getting only a permission for a fixed period and not owning anything by purchase. The element of rendering service is lacking as far as the complainant is concerned. A consumer as defined under the Act can be a person who purchases goods or hire services of the opposite party for consideration. The transaction that has been taken place as the subject matter of discussion cannot be considered as purchase of goods or hiring of service of any person. That does not mean complainant has no right at all out of the transaction between the complainant and opposite party. Ofcourse, he may have certain right but those rights can only be enforced through civil court.
The complainant mainly relied upon the case Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta 1994(1) CPR. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court therein has no application to this case in hand, though it has given message to adopt a constructive approach. Apex Court held therein that the service related to immovable property does not oust the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. The question of jurisdiction arose in the case in hand not because the service is related to immovable property. Apex court made it clear that public authority or statutory authority will come within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. The question of maintainability arose in the present case not because the opposite party is a public authority or statutory authority. Hence it can be seen that the principles derived from case of Lucknow Development Authority has no application to the case in hand.
The question that is to be taken for consideration is whether or not complainant has availed any service from opposite party? That is what is answered above that the complainant obtained only a permission to utilize the property belonged to opposite party for the purpose of engaging various consumers for providing facility to park their vehicles on payment of a charge, by which the complainant has not been placed the status of a consumer.
In the light of the above analysis we hold the view that the complainant in the case in hand will not be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus the complaint is not maintainable and thereby stands dismissed.
Dated this the 5th day of September, 2011.
Sd/- President Sd/- Member Sd/- Member
forwarded by order
Senior Superintendent
