A.K. Mehta, President
1 Sh. Pritpal Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act (herein-after called as ‘the Act’) against H.C.Dewan, Nigran Engineer, Water Supply & Sanitation Circle, Amritsar and another (herein-after called as ‘Opposite Parties’) on the allegations of misuse of the government posts as the Opposite Parties had not acted timely for the enlistment of the complainant as enlisted government contractor and caused financial loss to the complainant and prayed for directing the Opposite Party No. 1 to pay compensation on this account, to the tune of Rs.5 lacs.
2 The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is enlisted contractor of the concerned department since 1992-93 on payment of prescribed fee and as such, is a consumer of the concerned department; that complainant received the enlistment vide letter No. 7664 dated 24.7.2014 and received on 4.12.2015; that the previous enlistment for the years 2012-13 and 2013-2014 which is considered to have expired on 31st March and on application, the enlistment is not renewed for number of months and on account of non-delivery of the copy of enlistment, the complainant could not be allotted many contracts and it caused financial loss to the complainant; that the Opposite Parties are responsible for carelessness in their official duty as the complainant was not delivered the enlistment for 2014-2016 within proper time vide letter No. 7664 dated 24.7.2014; that the complainant gave his permanent address of Tarn Taran in his application and the address of the complainant in the official record is of Tarn Taran, but the officials of the Opposite Parties wrote the address of the complainant as Amritsar instead of Tarn Taran and due to this reason, the letter was delivered to him on 4.12.2015; that there are many postal stamps on the letter which are not legible and some writing is also on the letter ‘as returned’ and it also shows the involvement of the postal department; that the concerned official sent the letter through ordinary post though there is provision for sending the letter through registered post; that the complainant requested the concerned official in February-March, 2015 for non-receipt of enlistment, but the concerned official told the complainant that the department do not issue the enlistment to a person against whom a FIR has been registered; that the complainant filed the complaints to the concerned officer and concerned officer got issued the copy, but no action was taken against the concerned official for sending the letter with delay; that the complainant prayed that the Opposite Parties be directed to pay compensation of Rs.5 lacs and the concerned officials be not paid the retirement benefits till the decision of the complaint. Hence the complaint was filed.
3 We have heard the complainant in person as the complainant pursued the complaint himself and has not engaged any counsel.
4. The complainant contended that he paid the fee at the time of registration of the enlisted contractor and also paid fee at the time of renewal of the contractor license and as such, he is a ‘consumer’ of the Opposite Parties. He contended that he applied for renewal of the contractor license for the years 2014-2016, but the Opposite Parties did not renew the contractor license within time and the Opposite Parties sent the renewed contractor license vide letter No. 7664 dated 24.7.2014 at wrong address and due to this reason, complainant received the letter late on 4.12.2015 through post and due to this delay in receipt of the letter, the complainant could not take many contracts and suffered financial loss and as such, the complaint is maintainable against the Opposite Parties.
5. For the admission of the compliant under Consumer Protection Act, the complainant is to first prove that he is ‘consumer’ of the Opposite Parties and secondly, the complainant is to prove that the services he availed from the Opposite Parties were deficient in nature and the Opposite Parties have not compensated the complainant for this lapse. The consumer is defined in section 2(1) (d) of the Act as under:-
“Consumer” means any person who- buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.
Therefore, the bare reading of the definition ‘consumer’ shows that if a person buys or agrees to buy goods or avails or agree to avail service for consideration, paid or promised to be paid, is a consumer of the Opposite Parties with the proviso that the goods or services are not for resale or for any commercial purpose. Section 2(1) (o) of the Act defines ‘Service’ as under:-
“Service” means, service of any description which is made available to potential facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.
In view of the term ‘consumer’ or ‘service’ as defined supra it is clear that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ under the Opposite Parties nor he has availed any service from the Opposite Parties for consideration. It is simple case, where the complainant applies to government department for issue of license and the department issue the license or renew the same from time to time, and it shows that the complainant had not purchased any goods from the Opposite Parties for consideration nor availed the services of the Opposite Parties for consideration. The complainant has simply applied for grant of license and the same was allowed by the concerned department though the complainant claims that he has paid the fee for the same, but no such proof is attached with the complaint. Otherwise also, said fee is only for the grant or renewal of license and is not consideration for availing any service. Moreover, the complainant cannot be treated as consumer of the Opposite Parties as the fee, if any, paid by the complainant is to the concerned department and not to the Opposite Parties. The complaint shows that the grievance of the complainant is simply that he applied for renewal of license, but the license after renewal was sent to the complainant late which caused loss to him and in this eventuality, the remedy with the complainant is not under the Consumer Protection Act, but under Civil Law as the complainant in order to file the complaint under Consumer Protection Act is to first prove that he is a ‘consumer’ and he availed the services of the Opposite Parties for consideration and the Opposite Parties were deficient in performance of those services, but the complaint under consideration, lacks all these ingredients and as such, the complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act.
6 In the light of above discussion, the complaint is not maintainable under the Act and same is hereby rejected. However, the complainant is free to proceed under appropriate law and Forum for the relief sough in this complaint. Copy of order be issued to the complainant free of costs as per law. File be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in Open Forum
Dated 6.10.2016
