Sri S.K.Sahoo, President.

          The  complainant  has filed the present  complaint U/s. 12 of C.P. Act. 1986.

2.       The  case of the  complainant  is that  he  along with others   opp.parties are residing  under  the territorial jurisdiction of  this  authority. The  complainant  used to  earn his livelihood  by   doing  contract  work and there  is other  source of  income. There was an e-tender  by the opp.parties  vide No. e-tender/12-13-51 dtd. 04.02.2013  for supply of  drinking  water to some  villages of  Talcher sub-division for   120 days in the  year 2013  as per  Package-III. The  complainant   submitted  the tender  quotation  before the  opp.parties for  supply of  drinking water  to village Brajanathpur and Radharamanpur  of Talcher.   After   direction by the  opp.parties  the  complainant   deposited  an amount of Rs.20,5000.00  i.e  50%  of  total estimated  tender cost  relating  to  work order  vide No.AOW/13-14-2, dtd.01.04.2013. The  complainant  started  water supply  to the  villages  on 04.04.2013 but the  agreement was  executed on 01.07.2013. While  executing the  agreement the complainant  came to  know  about the   installation of    vehicle  tracking machine. The  complainant  ensured delivery   of   water, keeping in  view   Clause-14,11 & 12 . The  complainant  had  supplied  water  for  a period   of 89 days in different villages. After the  stipulated  period was overed the  complainant   was  submitted the  bills , amounting Rs. 5,49,120.00 along with  the  security  amount  which was received by opp.party No.1. The   Log Book  were also  submitted. The opp.parties  did not pay the  contractual  amount to the  complainant. So the  complainant  approached the  Hon’ble  High Court of Odisha vide WPC No. 5096/2014. By order dtd.31.03.2014 the Hon’ble High Court directed the  complainant to approach  with detail representation  relating to  his grievance. On 20.04.2014 the  complainant  submitted  his  grievance in detail  in writing  to opp.party No.1. By letter dtd.19.06.2014  the opp.party No.1  intimated the  complainant  that he is  not  entitled to  receive  any amount as per the  agreement and  work order   entered by the  parties. Inspite of that the  complainant  repeatedly approached the opp.parties  but on 15.11.2017 opp.party No.4  intimated the  complainant  that the  billing  amount  is  not  on the  basis  of Log Book and  it is  to  be  paid  on the basis VTM report which is  not  provided by the  complainant. The  asking of opp.party No.4   for submission of  VTM report  is unjust and improper. The  complainant has  filed  his  claim as per the  tender agreement.

3.       The opp.parties filed a  joint  written statement .The case of the opp.parties is that the  complaint is  not  maintainable   as framed . The  complaint  is not  coming under the  purview  of Section-12  of C.P. Act. 1986. The opp.parties have  no  comment  at paragraph- 1 & 2 of the complaint and paragraph-3 & 4 of the  complaint  is admitted. The description of the   work  mentioned in BOQ is quoted as  “Supply of drinking water to different spots of following villages through vehicle mounted/hauled tanker including loading/drawing water from departmental sources from Ranipark/Lingaraj stand post as decided and distribution of water from the tanker to the villager including cost of diesel, Mobil, hire charges of tanker, repair & maintenance, wages of deriver & helper and cost of vehicle tracking machine including its operation etc. (everything required for the job is the responsibility of the contractor) with following lead as per direction of Engineer-in- charge”.  The  complainant has  deposited  only 5% of the agreement  value  amounting  Rs.5,49,120.00 .The  agreement  was  executing   on 28.06.2013 . The complainant  was  well aware for  installation of the  VTM machine  was  to  be  installed by the contractor- complainant. The  representation of the complainant has been disposed  of in obedience  of the  order passed by the Hon’ble High Court . The  complainant has not complied the terms and  condition of the  work order. The opp.parties have  not  violated the   conditions of the  agreement and  they are not  liable to pay compensation. The complaint be  rejected.  

4.       During  argument the Learned Counsel for the  complainant relied on decisions reported in 2004(2) CPR 29 (NC) National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi  (The Water Base Ltd. Vrs. Dilip Kr. Jana & Anr.), II(2002)CPJ 59(MRTP) Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi  (K.Bikram Singh Prop. M/S.Cine Arts India Vrs. Plus Channel India Ltd. & Ors)  and  2004 (1) CPR 335 Andhra Pradhesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (T.G.Vasantha Guptha Vrs. Addagalla Seshapani) and  submitted  that the claim of the  complainant  is  supported by the  aforesaid decisions. Perused the  decisions relied  on  filed by the  complainant. In all the  cases consideration  was paid basing  on agreement between the parties and the  opp.parties failed  to provide service as per the agreement. In the  present  case before this Commission the  complainant has neither paid the consideration  to the opp.parties nor there is  deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. The facts of the cases  relied on  in  quite different  from the case in hand.

4.       From the  complaint  petition and the documents  filed by the  complainant  it is clear that the  complainant  is  a contractor   and  his  tender was accepted by the  opp.parties  for  supply of  drinking water  to  some  villages  of Talcher Sub-Division. Accordingly   an agreement  was   entered in between the  complainant   and the  opp.parties on 28.06.2013 . However, the  complainant started  supply of  drinking  water to different  villages  from 04.04.2013  , although  the  article   of  agreement  was signed   on 28.06.2013.

5.       The   main  objection of the   opp.parties is that the  complainant   is  not a consumer  under C.P.Act, 1986 and the opp.parties  are not   to provide  service  to the  complainant. The  transaction  in between the  complainant   and the  opp.parties  is  a contract  . The  complainant has not paid  any consideration for the  contract. Similarly the   opp.parties are also  not  service provider. The  complainant  is not  coming under the definition of “ consumer” as described   U/s.2(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The  complainant is  free to take  recourse  of  any  other   forum  for  violation of  contract. This  Forum/Commission  has  no  jurisdiction to decide the  lis   in between the  complainant  and the opp.parties, as present  the  complaint  is  not maintainable  before  this  Forum/Commission .

6.       Hence  order :-

: O R D E R :

           The  case be  and the same is  dismissed  on contest against the opp.parties.