CC.No.10/2024

11-6-2024

ORDER ON ADMISSION

SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

       The complainant filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in service in not paying an amount of Rs.99.00 lakhs towards the completion of the work, hence prays for payment of the said amount along with compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs for deficiency in service and m+ental agony.

         2. Heard on admission.

         3. The learned advocate for complainant submits that the complainant is a Civil Engineer who has taken a construction work from the Opposite Party for construction of 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd floor and entered into an agreement for Rs.45.00 lakhs towards construction of the Opposite Party’s College i.e. Kittel Science Collage new building situated at Kittel College Campus, Dharwad. After the agreement, the complainant had completed the construction work, but the Opposite Parties failed to pay the amount as per the bills issued as and on the complainant demanded. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and sought for payment of the balance amount.

         4. Perused the complaint and other documents, here we noticed that the complainant had undertaken the construction work of the Opposite Party’s college of 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd floor, accordingly he had completed the construction work and sought for payment of the balance amount to be payable by these Opposite Parties. Here we noticed that the complainant not fall within the definition of the CP Act, because he had provided the service by undertaking construction of college building within the premises.    

         5. On the other hand the Opposite Party is a Consumer who had availed construction work from this complainant. The complainant has demanded for payment of the balance amount which has to be payable by the respondent. It appears that the complainant sought for payment of the balance amount under suite is for recovery of the money.    

         6. The Opposite Party had availed the services from the complainant. On the other hand, the complainant had not availed any service from the Opposite Party. The complaint is not maintainable under the CP Act. If at all the complainant intended to recovery any amount from the Opposite Parties is at liberty to file recovery suite before any other appropriate authority. Considering the facts of the complaint and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that, the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a “Consumer” as per the CP Act. As such the complaint is dismissed and we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.  No order as to costs.  

Send a copy of this order to both parties.

MEMBER                                            JUDICIAL MEMBER