By Sri.M.S.Sasidharan, Member
The complaint is filed to get back the amount paid as advance to the respondents. The case in brief is that the complainant desired to start a mineral water plant in Killannur village. The complainant contacted the 1st respondent and as per their instructions of the 2nd respondent complainant issued a cheque for Rs.25,000/- dated 20/3/2007 and the 1st respondent acknowledged the receipt of the said amount. But the Pollution Control Board did not give the required No objection certificate. And the complainant was not able to get the required bank loan to start the project. The complainant informed the 2nd complainant as well as the 1st respondent about his inability to start the project and asked to return the said amount several times over phone and through letters. But the amount was not returned. So a registered lawyer notice was sent on 5/4/2008. The 1st respondent replied with untenable contention. The amount was not returned.. Hence the complaint filed.
2. The respondents filed a counter version to the effect that the complainant is not a consumer according to the Consumer protection Act. The respondents accepted Rs.25,000/- as an advance amount. The said advance was credited by the respondent in to the total expenses of the proposed water plant. The respondent accepted the advance amount after executing a document with complainant that the advance amount would be nonrefundable. These matters were explained to the complainant in the reply to the legal notice. The respondent suffered irreparable loss due to the non starting of the water plant. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. Points for consideration are that :
1) Is the complaint maintainable ?
2) Is the complainant entitled to get back the advance amount ?
3) Other reliefs and costs ?
4. Evidence adduced are Exhibits P1 to P4 and Exhibit R1. No oral evidence has been adduced by the complainant and the respondents.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The complainant’s case is that he gave the respondents Rs.25,000/- as an advance amount for supplying the plant and machinery for starting the proposed mineral water plant. But the Pollution Control Board did not give the required No objection certificate. The complainant could not avail the required loan from the bank. So he could not start the proposed project. Even though he requested to return the advance amount it was not refunded. The respondents initially questioned the maintainability of the complaint before the Forum. The learned counsel for the respondent has stated that it is revealed from Exhibit P1 that the complainant has other source of income and moreover he has not pleaded livelihood in the complaint. Exhibit P1 is perused. It is a letter dated 28/12/07 from the complainant to the 1st respondent. However it is written in the letter head bearing Jaison Tyre Retreading centre, Peramangalam. At the bottom there are names of Jaison Tyre Retreading Centre & Jaison Food Products, Chelakkara. Hence it is revealed that the complainant desired to start the proposed water plant in addition to these establishments. The complainant has not stepped into the box to give evidence to the question of self employment. It is also pertinent to note that no livelihood is pleaded in the complaint. Hence the complainant seeks the service from the respondents to make profit through the proposed mineral water plant. So the complainant does not come under the purview of ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d) (11) of Consumer Protection Act and the complaint found not maintainable.
7. In the result the complaint stands dismissed as not maintainable.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 12th day of September 2012.
