Order No. 2                                            Date : 18.12.2015.

          Heard the ld. counsel for the petitioner, Malay Dutta, who filed this case praying for a direction upon the o.p. to refund Rs. 10 lakhs with 15% interest per annum taken as advance from him on 10.11.2011 till realization and compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation costs.

          The simple case of the petitioner is that he made advance payment to the o.p. for getting a job and thus the petitioner is a consumer and the o.p. is a service provider as the o.p. has taken up a project in the River Damodar desilting the said river. U/S 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986 it is provided that service means any service which is made available to potential user like the service given by banks and other financial institutions, post office, insurance companies , electric department, gas supply department etc. where the authorities are service provider and the people at large are consumers. In the instant case the Forum does not find any such service-provider or consumer. Here  the petitioner advanced a sum of Rs. 10,000/-to the o.p. for getting a job. Here is no case of the petitioner that the o.p. provide service to the unemployed on payment of a service charges. The case made out here by the petitioner simply amounts to cheating as considered also by the petitioner. Here the petitioner cannot be said to be a consumer under the definition under this Act. The legislative intention in the Act is to protect the consumer against services rendered by the statutory bodies as well as the private institution but in the instant case the Forum does not find   any thing which would show that the o.p. is service provider and the petitioner is a consumer as in the case of bank and others. In the instant case there is no actual and potential user as laid down in the definition and the service provider would go on giving facility to the consumers. This case lacks the presence of consumers and thus the dispute cannot be consumer dispute as it is not a case that the o.ps. is a service provider and thus even though the case was filed within stipulated time with sufficient court fees and this  Forum having jurisdiction both financial as well as territorial yet it cannot be admitted as this is not a consumer dispute.

          Hence,

                              O R D E R E D     

          That  HDF Case No. 435 of 2015 be and the same is rejected as not tenable on the point of admission.

          Supply the copy of the order to the petitioner, free of costs.