D.O.F. 12.04.2013

                                            D.O.O. 27.12.2013

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

Present:      Sri. K.Gopalan                   :                President

                   Smt. Sona Jayaraman K.  :               Member

                   Sri. Babu Sebastian         :               Member

Dated this the 27^th day of December,  2013.

C.C.No.105/2013

K.V.R. Sathyanarayana Raju,

S/o. Appala Raju,                                                     :   Complainant

Sathyanilayam

Kattuvadi, Narath P.O.

Kannur

Jomon

Proprietor,

M/s. P.J. Enterprises,                                         

Opp. N.K. Balakrishnan Memorial A.U.P. School,    :   Opposite Party

Nileshwar P.O.,

Kasaragod District – 671 314

O R D E R

Sri. Babu Sebastian, Member

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection

 Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay `51620 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and cost of `5000 and compensation of `10000 to the complainant.

          The case of the complainant in brief is as follows : During February-March 2012 the complainant had entrusted the opposite party to construct stainless steel railing in the sit out, balcony and staircase of the House belongs one Mr. P.V. Raju, Narath P.O., now residing at Hyderabad.  The complainant says that he is the “caretaker” of House No. N.P. XIII-525, Narath P.O.  As an agent, complainant is looking after and managing the said house.  As per the terms, the opposite party had promised and assured the complainant that he is using best quality material which will not rust at all.  The opposite party completed the entire work and received `62,020 as a charge out of that `15,400 was charged to stair case.  After sometime it is found that the stainless steel railing at sit out and balcony are fully rusted except stair case.  The complainant contended that the opposite party had used substandard material for the construction, and thus there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  So that complainant suffered a loss of `46,620.  Hence this complaint.

          Notice was issued to opposite party after receiving the complaint.  But it was returned as “unclaimed”.  The opposite party remained absent throughout the proceedings.

          The main point to be considered is whether there is any consumer relation between the complainant and opposite party?  If yes, what is the remedy in case there is deficiency in service?

          The evidence consists of chief affidavit of complainant and Ext.A1 to A3 marked on his side.

          The complainant had entrusted the opposite party to construct stainless steel railing in the sit out, balcony and stair case of the house of one Mr. P.V. Raju, Narath P.O., who is residing at Hyderabad.  The complainant says that he is the care taker of the said house.  The opposite party has completed the entire work and received sum of `62,020 as a charge of the work. But later it is found that the stainless steel rails of sit out and balcony are fully rusted.  Thereafter complainant sent lawyer notice ie Ext.A1, A2 postal receipt and A3 acknowledgment card shows that it was sent. At this juncture complainant has to prove that he has right and authority to file this complaint, for and on behalf of the real owner before this Forum. The complainant did not produce any authority to shows that he is entitled to get the relief sought in the complainant, instead of the owner.  He cannot act as a complainant and conduct case for and on behalf of the consumer.  The complainant has no consumer relation with the opposite party.  He did not establish his authority to conduct the case as a complainant.  The complainant in the present case is neither an effected party nor a consumer.  Complainant has failed to establish that, he is legally entitled to act as a complainant and conduct case instead of the real owner/consumer.  Hence we are of opinion that the complainant is not a consumer and had no locustandi to file the complaint.  So the complaint, brought before the Forum is not maintainable since he has no consumer relation with the opposite party. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result, complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

          Dated this the 27^th day of  December, 2013.

                         Sd/-                       Sd/-               Sd/-

                       President               Member          Member  

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.  Copy of lawyer notice dated 23.01.2013.

A2.  Postal receipt

A3.  Returned Regd. Letter as “unclaimed”.

Exhibits for the opposite party

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

Nil

Witness examined for opposite party

Nil

      /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT