M/S. S.R.A. Construction,

represented by its proprietor,

Sk. Rahman Ali,

son of late Samed Ali,

resides at village – Kodalia, Bhagpur,

P.S. Kolaghat, District – East Midnapur,

PIN – 721151..--------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         Sk. Abrar Ali,

            son of late Mahmood Hossain,

Head Master of Panchpara High Madrasa (H.S.),

P.O. Radhadasi, P.S. & District – Howrah,

PIN – 711317.  

.

2.         Sk. Nazrul Islam,

s/o. late Abdul Hakim,

Secretary of Panchpara High Madrasa ( H.S. ),

P.O. Radhadasi, P.S. & District – Howrah,

PIN  - 711 317.

3.         Sk. Abdul Alim,

            son of late Golam Mustafa,

            President of Panchpara High Madrasa ( H.S. ),

            P.O.  Radhadasi, P.S. & District – Howrah,

            PIN – 711317.------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  It is the specific grievance of the complainant, M/s. S.R.A. Construction,

represented by its proprietor, Sk. Rahman  Ali, that even after completion of the scheduled construction work at the school premises as per satisfaction, O.Ps., being the Head Master and Secretary of the Panchpara High Madrasa ( H.S.), have not made the full payment to the complainant.

2.                  Brief facts of the case is that for the construction and development of the

school, complainant submitted one quotation of  Rs. 6,43,082/- towards the tender being schedule Ref. No. 01/MP LADS/06 dated 16-01-2006 along with bank draft as earnest money. As his quotation was accepted by the school authority, complainant performed the job and on completion, complainant was further entrusted with some extra work which was also completed by the complainant. And complainant submitted bill for payment for such extra work but it was not accepted by the school authority and authority prepared another bill with help of an expert for an amount of Rs. 1,97,531/- which was accepted and  confirmed by the authority on and from 01-02-2012. But till 13-02-2013, no payment was made by the O.Ps. on various pretexts and complainant sent lawyer’s notice to O.P. requesting them to make the payment. But even after receiving the said notice, O.Ps. did not take any initiative to do the needful. It is further stated by the complainant that as a service provider, complainant carried out the job with full satisfaction of the O.Ps. but O.Ps. did not pay the charges for the extra work being Rs. 1,97,531/- and thereby alleging deficiency on the part of the O.Ps., complainant has filed this instant petition praying for a direction to be given upon the O.Ps to pay to the complainant Rs. 1,97,531/- along with an amount of compensation being Rs. 50,000/-and interest for an amount of  Rs. 30,000/-.  

3.                  Notices were served. O.ps. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case heard on contest.

4.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration.            O.p. no. 1 in his  

written version has given the details of payments made to the complainant on different dates under the heading ‘schedule of payment’, and whereby O.P. no. 1 rather claimed that an extra amount of  Rs.2,287/- was paid to the complainant for all the construction work carried out by the complainant. O.p. no. 1 has also annexed all the documents with his written version. We have carefully gone through these documents. And we find that it is a pure case of monetary claim made by the complainant to the O.Ps. In para 4 of the complaint / petition, complainant has declared itself as a service provider. As per Section 2(1)(d), the service provider in some one or any organization against whom consumer  files a case alleging deficiency in service. Here in this case, complainant has provided construction service to the O.Ps. So, even if it is the livelihood of the complainant, complainant cannot get any relief under the provisions of the  C.P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ). Here, O.Ps. have availed of service from the complainant and they are the consumers of the complainant. A careful reading of the provisions of the C..P. Act, 1986 would be ;able to explain clearly that  C.P. Act provides protection to the consumers. In this case, the status of the complainant is that of a service provider and not of a consumer. Accordingly the case is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.     

      Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  80 of 2013 ( HDF 80 of 2013 )  be  dismissed against the o.ps. without cost.

      However, the complainant is at liberty to file its petition before the appropriate forum afresh.  

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                   

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

 ( Jhumki Saha )                         ( P. K. Chatterjee )                (T.K. Bhattacharya  )

 Member,                                     Member,                                President,

 C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                     C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                 C.D.R.F.,Howrah                                      

                                          .