Date of filing   :    27-02-2012 

                                                                            Date of order  :    06 -08-2012

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                CC.51/2012

                         Dated this, the   6^th     day of   August    2012

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                             : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                      : MEMBER

SMT. K.G.BEENA                                        : MEMBER

Leo Antony Kochery,                                                } Complainant

S/o. Antony,  Planter, Po.Kadumeni,

Kasaragod.Dt.

(Adv. M.Balagopalan, Kasaragod)

1. Napin.C, Depot. Manager,                                  } Opposite parties

    Mardec R.K.Latext Pvt.Ltd,

    Periyanganam Depot. Po.Periyanganam.

2. Manaing Director,

    Mardec R.K. Latex Pvt.Ltd,

    Anamallais House, Annexe,

    Chembukavu, Trissur. 682 020.

(Ops 1 & 2. P.Venogpalan Nair, Hosdurg)

                                                                        O R D E R

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT

              ORDER ON PRILIMINARY ISSUE REGARDING THE MAINTAINABILITY.

            In brief the case of complainant is that  he supplied 36 barrels Rubber Latex  to opposite parties on 8-12-2011 at the rate of 177/DRC (Dry Rubber Content).   But they paid only `3,25,076/- keeping a balance of `41,411/- and when he asked for the balance  amount the opposite parties insisted him to supply rubber latex @ 157/DRC as a condition to pay the balance.

2.         Opposite party filed version.  According to opposite parties complainant is not a consumer and the dispute mentioned herein is not a consumer dispute.  Hence the issue regarding the maintainability of the complaint is  considered before entering into the merits of the case.

3.         Both the counsels of complainant and opposite parties heard.

4.         According to the learned counsel for opposite parties the relationship between the complainant and opposite party is that of a debtor-creditor  and there is no element of consumer dispute is involved.

5.         According to learned counsel for complainant the non-payment of promised amount for the Rubber Latex amounts to deficiency in service and the opposite parties are  liable to compensate the complainant for the loss he suffered.

6.         Upon hearing both sides we are of the view that complainant is not a consumer and dispute mentioned herein is not a consumer dispute since the complainant has neither purchased any goods from the opposite parties not hired any service from  them.  Actually the opposite parties purchased  goods i.e. Rubber Latex from the complainant and there is no element of service included in that transaction.

            Therefore we hold that the complainant is not a consumer and the dispute mentioned herein is not a consumer dispute.  Hence the complaint is dismissed in limini holding that it is not maintainable. The complainant can approach the Civil Court for vindicating his grievances if so advised.

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

Pj/