DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MALDA, MALDA D.F.ORIGINAL CASE No.30/2008. Date of filing of the Case: 05.05.2008 Complainant | Opposite Party | Smt. Kamala Chowdhury, Aged 36 years, W/O. Suklal Chowdhury, By caste – Hindu, by Profession – Kutty Business Residence of : Vill. Harishchandrapur, P.O. Agra, Harishchandrapur, P.S. Habibpur, Dist. Malda. | | Nalini Ranjan Biswas S/O. Lt. Rajani Kanta Biswas, Residence of : Vill. Harishchandrapur, P.O. Agra, Harishchandrapur, P.S. Habibpur, Dist. Malda. |
Present: | 1. | Shri A.K. Sinha, Member | 2. | Smt. Sumana Das, Member | | |
For the Petitioner : Dipak Banerjee, Advocate. For the O.P.: None. Order No. 02 Dt. 15.05.2008 Today is fixed for hearing on the point of admissibility of the petition of complaint. The gist of the petition is that the petitioner went to the O.P. who is rice mill owner for husking paddy on 24.06.2007 at 04:00 P.M. when no worker was present. The O.P. asked the petitioner for putting his rice in the huller for crashing the same and owning to no knowledge of function of husking system her wearing cloth was wrapped up with the running huller and she sustained serious injuries. The petitioner was shifted to hospital by her husband and local people and O.P. did not take any step for her treatment. The petitioner also lodged FIR at Habibpur P.S. and Habibpur B. Case No.112/07 dated 9.5.2007 u/s 287/338 I.P.C. has been registered. The petitioner claimed that the incident took place due to the negligence and insufficient service of the O.P. Hd. the submission of the ld. advocate of the petitioner at length. Perused the documents filed by the petitioner. No document has been filed for payment of consideration for hiring the service of the O.P. Let us see whether the petitioner can be termed as ‘Consumer’ as per Section 2(1)(d)(iii) of the C.P. Act. Sec.2(1)(d) of the Act. shows that a person claiming himself as ‘Consumer’ should satisfy, amongst others, three conditions, namely (i) the service should have rendered to him (ii) the service should be hired by him and (iii) for hiring the service, he should have paid consideration in the manner envisaged by Sec.2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Service has been defined in Sec.2(1)(O) of the Act. It is an inclusive definition and illustration of various services are available to potential users have been given. In view of above there is nothing to hold that any consideration has been paid by the petitioner to the O.P. and as such the petitioner cannot be held to be a consumer within the definition referred to herein above. Proper fees have been paid. Hence, ordered, that Malda D.F. Case No.30/2008 is dismissed for having no merit. The petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to law. No order passed as to the cost. Let a copy of this order be given both the parties free of cost at once. Sumana Das A. K. Sinha Member Member D.C.D.R.F., Malda D.C.D.R.F., Malda |
