Kerala

Idukki

CC/102/2024

District Hospital Thodupuzha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nizar P Basheer - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jun 2024

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 11.6.2024

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the  29^th  day of   June,  2024

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.102/2024

     Between

Complainant  :        The Superintendent,

District Hospital,

Thodupuzha – 685585.

        And

Opposite Party  :         Nisar P. Basheer,

Proprietor, Powercool,

Varappetty, Muvattupuzha.

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (the Act, for short).  Complainant’s case is briefly discussed hereunder :

 

Complainant is the Superintendent of Idukki Government Hospital, Thodupuzha.  Opposite party is one Mr. Nisar P. Basheer, proprietor of Powercool, a concern engaged in maintenance work of air conditioners.  Though he is not arrayed as a formal opposite party, he is shown as reference No.3 in the complaint.  Opposite party had successfully bid for the tender floated by District Government hospital of Thodupuzha for maintenance of air conditioners installed in the hospital for the period from 16.3.2023 till 15.3.2024.  An amount of Rs.3,34,500/- was allotted to him, for these maintenance works.  However, despite repeated reminders in person and over phone, opposite party has not attended to maintenance work.  This has caused difficulty in the functioning of hospital which had inconvenienced both patients and hospital employees.  Therefore complainant prays for reimbursement of Rs.3,34,500/- allotted to opposite party for maintenance work.  Concerned file is also submitted along with the complaint.  

 

After filing of complaint, it was posted for admission hearing on 25.6.2024.  We have heard the complainant in person.  Now the point which arises for consideration is: whether this complaint is maintainable ?

 

 

 

 

The Point :

 

Complainant has not preferred this complaint in his personal capacity.  He has filed it in his official capacity as Superintendent of Government hospital of Thodupuzha.  Admittedly, the amount paid was from government funds allotted to the hospital.  Under these circumstances, complainant does not appear to us as a consumer who can pursue this cause of action for and on behalf of government.   As per Section 2(7), consumer is defined as any person who buys any goods for consideration or avails any service for consideration as defined in the Act.  Complainant herein does not fit into the definition of a person as defined in Section 2(31) of the Act.  Therefore, complaint filed by the hospital Superintendent cannot be maintained under the Act.  Though as per Section 2(5), a complainant could be Central Government or any State Government, complainant does not refer to any authority which permits him to represent the Government in these proceedings.  Authority to represent the Government, State or Central, are specified by the Governments concerned and complainant does not appear to be one so authorised as per statute.  Nor has he produced any specific authority in writing to represent the government in this case.  Therefore, we find that the complaint filed by the complainant herein is not maintainable.   Point is answered accordingly.

 

In the result, this complaint is rejected.

 

              Pronounced by this Commission on this the  29^th   day of June, 2024

 

 

   Sd/-       SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

  Sd/-  

             SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

 

 

          Forwarded by Order,

 

 

               ASSISTANT REGISTRAR