DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : 

JAJPUR.

Presents:-      1.    Smt. Susmita Mishra ,   President,

                                                                                                             2.     Sri Bibekananda Das            ,     Member.

            Dated the 20th  day of October, 2023.

C.C. Case  No. 138 / 2020..

Saroj Das, owner of the Vehicle No.OD-04-N-8393

 At:- Santara, P.O.Dala,  

P.S:-  Panikoili, Dist:- Jajpur.                                                     .  .  .  .  Complainant.

                        Versus.

1. Proprietor, Baba Langaleswar  Transport, At/P.O/Koira,Dist.Sundargarh

Branch office Baniasahi, Mangalabag,Cuttack.

2. Charcheet Moharana  India, At.Baniasahi

Mangalabag,Dist:- Cuttack.                                                           ....Opp. Parties.

                       Counsels appeared for the parties.                     

For the Complainant :-   M/S S..Panda, Advocate and associates.

For the Opp. Party no.2   M/S  R.K.Nayak,P.K.Mohapatra Advocate&associates.

For the Opp.party No.1:     None.

Date of filing Complaint          :-                    18.11.2020

Date of Argument                    :-                    15.09.2023

Date of Order                          :-                    20.10.2023.

J U D G M E N T

MR. BIBEKANANDA DAS, MEMBER  :-

            This C.C.Case has been filed U/S  35 of C.P.Act, 2019 and taken up today for order. Since it is a year old case,   we are disposing it on priority basis  as per mandate of C.P.Act,2019.

            The complainant has filed the case against the O.ps by seeking direction to the O.Ps  to indemnify the claim of the complainant  to a tune of Rs.50,000/- as the O.ps had hired the service of the vehicle of the complainant but did not pay the amount of Rs.24,231/- towards service of the vehicle of the complainant. The O.Ps, on the other hand, filed their written version by challenging the maintainability of the present C.C.Case and submitted that a service provider and owner of vehicle can not be treated as a “consumer”  under the C.P.Act,2019.

We have gone through the case  record and perused the  documents available on record and also gone through the entire order sheet  and  on repeated calls, none appeared from both the parties to proceed with the hearing. 

            However, from the aforesaid facts as discussed above, it is our considered view that in the present C.C.Case the O.P.no.1 is the “consumer” to whom the service provided by the complainant and how the “service provider” will become a consumer i.e the complainant. It is the settled principle of law that the “consumer” to whom any service provided or agreed to be provided may file a complaint before this Commission. So, in the present C.C.Case the complainant is the “service provider” and  how he will be treated as a “consumer”  under the provision of C. P.Act,2019 and as such the present C.C.Case is not maintainable before this Commission.

            Hence, the present C.C.Case No. 138/2020  is devoid of any merit  and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.         

            Issue extract of the order to the parties concerned.

            Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 20th^t  day of October, 2023.