Kerala

Kasaragod

CC/10/241

J.Muhammad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rafeeq.M.M. - Opp.Party(s)

Johnson.M.A. Kasaragod

17 Feb 2011

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/10/241
 
1. J.Muhammad
S/o.aboobacker, M.G.P. House.No.7/08 Pullarakatta House, Moodamvail.Post. Manjeshwar.Via
Kasaragod
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Rafeeq.M.M.
S/o. Muhammad Kunhi Haji, Nerattali House, Moodamvail.Po.
Kasaragod
Kerala
2. Regional Transport Officer
Regional Transport office, Collectorate Complex,Vidyangar.Po.
Kasaragod
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

D.o.F:23/11/2010

D.o.O:17/2/2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                 CC.NO.241/10

                 Dated this, the 17th  day of February 2011

PRESENT:

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                        : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                     : MEMBER

 

 

J.Muhammed

S/o Aboobacker, MGP House No.7/08,

Pullarakatta  House, Moodamvail Po,                            : Complainant

Via Manjeshwar,Kasaragod

( Adv.M.A.Johnson,Kasaragod)

 

1.    Rafeeq.M.M, S/o Muhammad  Kunhi Haji,

Nerahalli House,Moodamvail Po, Manjeshwar

2.    Regional Transport Officer,                                        : Opposite parties

Regional Passport Office, Collectorate Complex,

Vidyanagar,Kasaragod.

 

      ORDER REGARDING THE ISSUE OF MAINTAINABILITY OF THE COMPLAINT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT

 

         Heard the counsel for the  complainant for admission of the complaint.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite party No.2 to change the timing of the stage carriage bus bearing reg.No.KL-14/J 8197 belongs to the complainant and also for  an order directing the opposite parties to compensate the financial loss caused to the complainant because of sanctioning of youte permit to 1st opposite party.

     In our view complainant  is not a consumer and the dispute mentioned  here in is not a consumer dispute as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act.  Complainant has no case that he availed  any service from opposite parties by paying consideration.  Moreover the complaint is relating to a granting of permit under the Motor Vehicles Act.  Chapter V of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the  Control of Transport Vehicles Sec.69 to 72 deals with the application: for permit, Procedure of RTA in considering application for stage carriage permit, grant of stage carriage permit etc.  Any person aggrieved in the order of the  Transport Authority can approach the State Transport Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act U/S 89 of MV Act.  As far as the granting of permit is concerned ,Motor Vehicles Act is a special Act.  Ordinarily the general   law must yield to special law. Therefore complainant ought to have take recourse to the statutory authorities constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, which is a special law as far as this complaint is concerned.

  That being so, we dismiss the complaint holding that complainant is neither a consumer nor the dispute involved is a consumer dispute.

  

MEMBER                                                                                            PRESIDENT

eva

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.