Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/138/2013

S.Jeyaraman - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.Arumugam - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

05 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE       THIRU.J. JAYARAM            PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                     TMT. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                   MEMBER

 

                              F.A. 138/2013

[Against the Order in  C.C No.397/2011 dated 10.1.2013 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore]

 

Dated this the  5^th day of MARCH 2015

 

S.Jayaraman,

S/o Sanmuga Nadar

No. 6/125, 3^rd street

P.M.Samy colony

R.S.Puram,

Coimbatore 641 002                                       ..Appellant/complainant

                                            Vs

M.Arumugam,

S/o Moorthy

No. 30, Sadaiyappan street

Ganesapuram,

Ramanathapuram,

Coimbatore 641 045                                     ..Respondent/opp.party

 

For the Appellant/complainant         : Mr.S.Jayaraman, party in person

For the Respondent/opp.party         : party in person

 

This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 3.2.2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this commission made the following order.

THIRU.J.JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.     This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore in C.C 397/2011 dated 10.1.2013, dismissing the complaint.

 

2.     The case of the complainant is that, he paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the opposite party for getting certified copies concerned in a  RCOP case.  But the opposite party neither got him the copies nor returned the money and hence the complaint.

 

3.           According to the opposite party, he is not a Registered Advocate clerk and he is not a clerk under any Advocate and that the complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act.

 

4.            The District Forum considered the rival contentions and dismissed the complaint holding that the complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

 

5.           Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant has preferred this appeal.

 

6.           It is pertinent to note that according to the Appellant/complainant he paid some money to the Respondent/opposite party for getting certain certified copies from the court and the opposite party did not get him the certified copies and he did not return the money also. According to the opposite party he is not an Advocate Clerk under any Advocate. It is not even established by the complainant that the opposite party is a Registered Advocate clerk. The complainant has gone out of the way and he has paid the amount to the opposite party who was not in a position to render any service to the complainant and the opposite party is a total stranger. Therefore the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act.  

 

7.         The District Forum has rightly held that the complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and has rightly dismissed the complaint.

 

8.            There is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum and we agree with the finding and the decision of the District Forum dismissing the complaint.

 

9.           There is no merit in the appeal.

 

10.          In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint.

               No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

 

 P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                        J. JAYARAM

   MEMBER                                                    PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER