Today is fixed for admission hearing.

The fact of the case is that the complainant M/S Malay Construction represented by its proprietor Malay Dutta filed a petition before the Forum which was registered as C.C.No.27/18.

The fact of the case is that the petitioner is a government contractor working construction of all Govt. authority since 2003-04. The O.P.No.1 i.e North Bengal State Transport Corporation invited a tender for construction of premises at Raiganj N.B.S.T.C. Depot. The petitioner dropped the tender form and his tender form was accepted as the petitioner was the lowest bidder of the said work and according to tender he is completed the work but the N.B.S.T.C authority did not pay the amount for his work for which he has filed the case before the Forum.

Now the main question comes whether the complainant is a consumer under the provision of Consumer Protection Act or not.

At the time of argument the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant refers a case law reported in III 2008 CPJ 240 (Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group Vs. Corporation of Chennai and others). By that case law the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant wants to impress upon the Forum that the present complainant is a Consumer as per provision of Consumer Protection Act.

 But on perusal of the case law it is found that the reported case was instituted by a Citizen Forum against the Corporation of Chennai for deficiency of service of Chennai Corporation. How this case law helps the complainant is not understood. On perusal of the case law it is found that the fact of the reported case is completely different with the facts of the present case. The fact of the present case is that by virtue of a tender the complainant took the construction work at N.B.S.T.C, Raiganj Depot and he completed the work but the amount was not paid. The work between the complainant and N.B.S.T.C under a contract. If there is violation of contract, the complainant should have move before the appropriate forum i.e any Civil Court for enforcement of the contract that on the part of the complainant he has complied the part of his portion but the

 N.B.S.T.C did not pay the amount.  In view of the decision reported in (1991) I CPJ 169 (1992) I CPR 10 : (1992) CPC 3(MC) ( Vonodini Bajpai Vs. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and 1991(I) CPR 379 ( Hyderabad) when there is breach of contract no complaint will be filed under this Act. The instant case is in same footing. Moreover, the work done by the complainant only for the personal gain. The Ld. Lawyer wants to impress upon the Forum by stating para 2 of the petition of complaint that the petitioner conduct his lively hood through the income from only the source of contractor work. But on perusal of the definition of consumer , explanation ‘commercial purpose’ does not include use by  a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. On perusal of the explanation that service availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment but in what manner the complainant is availing service has not been mentioned in the petition of complaint. Mere statement that by contractor it is his only source of income does not acceptable. So, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on the above discussion it is found that the complainant is not a consumer under the provision of Consumer Protection Act. As such the petition is not maintainable.

 Hence, it is

                                  O r d e r e d

That the instant case be and same is dismissed as not maintainable.