BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
R.P.No.28/2014 against I.A.No.113/2014 in C.C.No.237/2014 District Forum-III, Hyderabad.
Between:
M/s Just Dial Limited,
Having office at
7-1-23, first floor,
Roxana Building,(Above Meena
Bazar)Green Lands, Begumpet,
Hyderabad-500 016.
Represented by its senior Manager,
(Administration & Accounts)
M.Naveen Kumar. Revision petitioner/ opposite party
And
M/s Comwen Information Technologies Pvt.
Ltd., having its office at Road No.10,
Adjacent to Star Hospitals, Opp: to WLC
College, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500 034,
Represented by its Director Mr.Adam. Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Petitioner:M/s.A.P.Suresh
Counsel for the Respondent: -Admission stage.
.
QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT.
AND
SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER.
MONDAY THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL,
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Oral Order (As per Hon’ble Sri Justice GopalaKrishna Tamada, President)
***
This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the District Forum in I.A.No.113/2014 in C.C.No.237/2014 dated 10-4-2014 whereby the District Forum-III, Hyderabad by its order directed the opposite party not to stop the services of the petitioner i.e. complainant pursuant to the contract dated 28-3-2014.
It appears that there was a contract between the respondent/complainant and the petitioner/opposite party for a period of one year but however as the opposite party is not adhering to the terms of the said contract and providing services as agreed upon, the complainant approached the District Forum and filed the complaint and the same is numbered as C.C.No.237/2014. In the said C.C. it also filed I.A.No.113/2014 seeking an interim injunction not to stop the services pursuant to the contract dated 28-3-2014.
The District Forum having considered the said petition and also the submissions granted interim direction as prayed for.
The said order is questioned by filing this revision petition.
Heard.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. that the respondent/complainant is involved in commercial activity and as such it does not come within the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined U/s. 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is his further contention that there is no contract in between the parties with regard to continuation of services and thus seeks to suspend the said order.
We are unable to appreciate any of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. If we give any finding at this juncture that the complainant is involved in commercial activity and it does not fall within the scope of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that affects the main case, similarly what are the terms of the contract has to be gone into by the District Forum. In those circumstances, we do not see any merits in this revision petition and accordingly the same is dismissed at the stage of admission. However, as the learned counsel for the petitioner expressed that there was urgency in the matter, we are of the view that the District Forum can be directed to hear the main C.C. and pass necessary orders at the earliest preferably within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Accordingly this revision petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.28-4-2014.
