Case of the petitioner/complainant in short is that the complainant executed various construction works entrusted to him by the respondent at his own expense.  The SDO inspected the works and verified the bills and endorsed them to the office of the District Manager, Telecommunications for making payment.  The payment was not made.  Aggrieved against this, petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum. 

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to settle the claims within two months from the date of passing of the order, aggrieved against which, the respondent filed appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission allowed the appeal and held that the complaint filed by the petitioner was not maintainable because it was the petitioner, who himself was the service provider and not the respondents.

          State Commission, in its order, has recorded the following finding :

“The complaint of Sri Chandra Mani Tripathi for a direction to the appellant to pay the former’s we find from perusal of the record as also the judgment in appeal that it was not consumer dispute subsisting between the parties Sri Chandra Mani Tripathi being a contractor had undertaken certain projects of the appellants and when his bills were not paid he filed the complaint which was allowed in part.  Obviously, the respondent/complainant was a service provider himself and since the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are not available for the benefit of service provider, his complaint was not maintainable.  Sri Sanjay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the respondent Sri Chandra Mani Tripathi agrees to this legal position.”

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Petitioner/complainant himself was the service provider and under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, the complaint filed by the service provider is not maintainable.  Dismissed.