BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                                      CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.201 of 2015

DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 14.07.2015

DATE OF ORDER: -10.12.2015

Jagdish aged about 51 years son of Shri Chand, resident of village Jagrambass, Post Office Dalawas, Tehsil Badhra, District Bhiwani.

    ……………Complainant.

VERSUS

1. Shagun Enterprises, Total Transport Solution & Concept, having its registered office at Plot No. 11, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh and having corporate office at 25, Sector-51A, Chandigarh through its Proprietor Sh. Virender Singh Hooda.
2. General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Rohtak.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Bhiwani.

………….. Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

BEFORE :-  Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

Shri Balraj Singh, Member

Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member

Present: - Shri D.V. Lamba, Advocate for complainants.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                    The brief facts of the case are that he is the registered owner of vehicle Mahindra MAXX bearing registration no. HR-61AT-3826. The OP no. 1 is authorized transporter/contractor for providing the vehicles for the department Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited for serving towers for Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited which are situated in various villages/cities and OP no. 2 being the authorized authority for this department signs the contract with OP no. 1. The complainant alleged that his vehicle was also selected for services for the said department and deputed the same with OP no. 3 on a settled rate of Rs. 22,000/- per month with the condition that contracted vehicle would be plied only upto 2500 kilometers per month.  The complainant alleged that as per the agreement the complainant provided better services for the above said department but OP no. 1 did not pay monthly rent of Rs. 22,000/- per month for the period of 3 months 13 days which amount comes to Rs. 77,000/-  On 07.03.2013, the complainant gave a representation to the OP no. 2  in this regard but till date Ops have not paid a single penny of rent to the complainant.    The complainant contacted with Ops telephonically and requested them to pay the amount of Rs. 77,000/- due towards them but they lingering the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses.  Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.

2.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant at the stage of admission of the complaint.  From the brief facts given, hereinabove, according to the complainant an agreement was executed between the complainant and the Ops for providing the vehicles to OP no. 2 for their requirements on a rate of Rs. 22,000/- per month under the terms and conditions of the agreement.  The complainant has filed the present complaint for the recovery of Rs. 77,000/- from the Ops under the said agreement.

3.                 The complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  According to the said definition, the  “consumer” means any person who buys any goods for a consideration or hires or avails of any services for a consideration.  The complainant neither has purchased any goods from the opposite party for consideration nor has availed any services of the opposite party for consideration. Rather, as per the contention of the complainant, he was providing services to OP no. 1 for consideration.  Therefore, the complainant does not come within the definition of “consumer”.  It was a contractual obligation simplicitor without attracting the provisions of the Act.  A contractual obligation cannot be termed as “consumer disputes” and consequently, complainant could not be termed as a “consumer”.  Thus the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.  The complainant shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps according to the provisions of law for his remedy in the competent court of law, if so advised. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 10.12.2015.                                             (Rajesh Jindal)

                                                                                President,   

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                      Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

(Ansuya Bishnoi),            (Balraj Singh),     

Member.                             Member.