Order No. 1                                                                                                                                        Date : 19-05-2015.

                Received the complaint lodged U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986. The petitioner filed this case praying for a direction on the o.p. to make payment of Rs. 2,47,301.70 p. in favour of the complainant with statutory interest accrued thereon and for compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/-.  The petitioner in the averments of the petition submitted that he is a bonafide consumer under the o.p. as he entered into an agreement on 01.03.2009 and that he would provide service and repairing mobile phone of the customers of the o.p. namely Intarvo Technologies Ltd. the o.p. violated the terms of agreement resulting the filing of the case.

                This Fourm heard the counsel for the petitioner on the ground of admission and finds that the petition is well in the limitation period and also proper court fees paid and the cause of action also arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum but regarding the petitioner being a consumer ld. counsel submitted that the petitioner being a proprietorship firm represented by sole proprietor, Srimanta Samanta, and he used to give service to the mobile phones of  the customers of the o.p. Thus the status of the petitioner is a service provider under the o.p. In the definition clause ‘Consumer’ means a person who ‘buys’ any goods for consideration or ‘hires’ or ‘avails’ of any services for consideration. In the instant case there is no fact that the petitioner buys any goods or hires any services and rather he provides services on behalf of the o.p. company and thus he cannot be a consumer. Ld. counsel submitted that the petitioner is to do the job of the o.p. for the purpose of earning his livelihood as mentioned in the explanation to the definition of ‘Consumer’.  This kept in mind the submissions of the ld. counsels for the petitioner and also the law laid down that in order to get relief under the provision of this Act one has to prove first that he is a ‘consumer’ and his dispute is a consumer dispute and if the above two conditions are not fulfilled, no dispute is tenable before the Consumer Forum.

                In the instant case this Forum find that the petitioner failed to prove himself as a  consumer and his dispute is a consumer dispute and thus the case is not maintainable before this Forum. Hence, the case is dismissed as not maintainable.

                The case is thus disposed of accordingly.   

                Member.                                             Member.                                                             President.