Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/595/2015

Vithal S Channavar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kuyer Milk Products Pvt Ltd Gadhinglaj - Opp.Party(s)

S V Telasinge

11 Mar 2016

ORDER

11/3/2016

Comp: S.I.A.

For hg.

: ORDER :

The complainant has filed the complaint u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act against the O.P. alleging deficiency in service for not paying the amount of Rs.49,980.17/- due from 17/5/2014 to 19/1/2015.

The point for consideration is that, whether the complaint is maintainable before this forum?

The complainant has alleged that, the complainant is an agriculturist and proprietor of Chennavar Milk Diary situated at Karoshi Cross (society code 1729) and alleges that he doing a diary business by collecting milk from the farmers and also from his own cattles and supply to the opponent regularly from few years. The complainant alleges that the opponent purchased milk from complainant society and regularly used to pay the amount for purchase of milk, but the opponent did not pay the amount of Rs.49,980.70/- due from 17/5/2014 to 19/1/2015 to the complainant, and alleges that the complainant approached the opponent requesting to pay the balance amount and also issued legal notice on 11/8/2015 but the opponent did not comply the notice. The complainant alleges that due to negligence and non payment of the amount the complainant has suffered heavy loss and he has to pay the amount to other farmers from whom he has purchased the milk and supply to the opponent and prayed to allow the complaint directing the opponent to pay the amount as prayed with 18% P.A. interest.

The complaint before the forum is for hearing on admission and we have heard the complainant on maintainability and looking to the allegations made in the complaint, first of all we have to consider whether the complaint is consumer and complaint is maintainable before the forum and forum is having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

On the allegation itself the complainant stated that his doing business of milk wending, on this count itself according to the provision of C.P. Act the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the act.

The consumer protection Act 1986, has been enacted and the consumer Forum or Commission have been established to protect the consumers from the service providers. Aggrieved consumers, for redressal of their grievance, can approach the Forum or Commission. There is no provision in the Act that the service providers are also allow to approach the Forum or Commission.

          In the case on hand, from the material on record, it is crystal clear that the complainant is service provider from whom, the O.P. has availed the service and have purchased the milk, hence the complainant is not a consumer. The definition of consumer provided in the Act reads as under:

“ Consumer means any person who-

          i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

          ii) (hires or avails of) any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires or avails of )the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person (but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose)

Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by his exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self employment.’’

 

By reading of the above provision the consumer doing business for commercial purpose is not a consumer and in the present complaint on hand nowhere in the complaint, the complainant has mentioned that his doing business for his livelihood etc., Hence the complainant is out of perview of definition of consumer.

On the other hand it is the case of complainant that the opponent has not paid the balance amount for purchase of milk from him. Hence we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the opponent, as the complainant himself is the service provider and the opponent is a service availer and also that by the facts alleged we can make out that the complaint wants to recover the balance amount from the opponent, which false under the civil claim. Hence this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such complaint and the forum has no jurisdiction of Civil Court. After perusing the documents and hearing the complainant on maintainability and jurisdiction. We pass the following the order;

: ORDER :

The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable. The complainant is at liberty to approach proper Forum/Court to redress his grievance.

Member               Member                         President

gm*