Sri Peddinasamba Murty filed a consumer case on 15 Jan 2018 against Sri Gummakonda Srinivas Rao in the Rayagada Consumer Court. The case no is CC/253/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 19 Mar 2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, RAYAGADA,
STATE: ODISHA.
C.C. Case No. 253/ 2016. Date. 15 .1. 2018.
P R E S E N T .
Dr. Aswini Kumar Mohapatra, President
Sri GadadharaSahu, . Member.
Smt. Padmalaya Mishra, Member
Sri Peddina Samba Murty, S/O : Late Harish Chandra Rao, New Colony, Po/Dist.Rayagada,State: Odisha. Pin no. 765 001. …….Complainant
Vrs.
Shri Gummakonda Srinivas Rao, STO., S/O: Krishnaiah, Govt. ITI Administrative office, Nalagonda, Dist: Nalgonda,Teangana State. .…..Opp.Parties
Counsel for the parties:
For the complainant: - Self..
For the O.Ps :- Exparte.
J u d g e m e n t.
The present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service against afore mentioned O.Ps for non refund of amount a sum of Rs..2,50,000/- towards cheque bounce.
The O.P. did not appear pursuant to the notice and was proceeded exparte. In view of justice as contemplated U/S- 13 (2) (b)(ii) of C.P. Act, 1986 as the statutory period for filing written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.
We therefore proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit. Heard from the learned counsel for the complainant. We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.
FINDINGS.
Now the issues on the oust are to be decided by this forum prior to delve in to conclusion:-
1.Whether this forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under the C.P. Act, 1986 ?
2. Whether the complaint is a consumer as defined U/S- 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act,1986?
While answering the issue we would like to refer the citations. It is held and reported in CPR-2011(4) page No. 482 the Hon’ble National commission, where in observed “Conumer forum can not adjudicate disputes without addressing to the basic issues”. In another citation reported in CPJ 2010(1) page No. 136 where in the Hon’ble State Commission, New Delhi observed “Forum should decide the dispute of jurisdiction first, application kept open to be decided later”
At this stage, it is appropriate to quote Section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act, which reads as follows:-
“(d)”Consumer” means any person who-
Admittedly, in the case at hand, the complainant has not availed any service nor purchased any goods from the O.P. for any consideration, as such, he cannot be a ‘consumer’ under them. Only because the Consumer Protection Act is a social benefit oriented Act, it cannot besaid that any body who files a case before the District Forum,as the case may be he can bea ‘consumer’.
On perusal of the complaint petition this forum observed that the matters relating to the cheque bounce U/S-138 of Negotiable instrument Act will not come under the purview of the C.P. Act, 1986. Where there is a special remedy is available to the parties under Negotiable Instrument Act provided by the legislature the forum did not inclined to invoke its jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter(Supra). Hence this forum has lack of jurisdiction to entertain the above dispute and adjudicate the same under the provisions of the C.P. Act, 1986. The case is not maintainable in view of the above discussion.
The grievance of the complainant can be raised before the appropriate court of law and not before this forum. We do not think proper to go into merit of this case.
Hence, the claim of the complainant can not be accepted under the provisions of the C.P. Act. It is open to complainant ordinary remedy to approach proper forum.
So to meet the ends of justice the following order is passed.
ORDER.
In the result with these observations, findings, discussion the complaint petition is dismissed. The complainant is free to approach the court of competent having its jurisdiction. Parties are left to bear their own cost. Accordingly the case is closed.
It is held and reported in SCC 1995(3) page No. 583 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering works Vrs. P.S.G.Industrial Institute where in observed “The time spent before consumer forum shall be set-off by the authority, where the proceedings are taken up, as per provision of Section-14 of Limitation Act.
Dictated and corrected by me
Pronounced on this 15th. Day of January, 2018.
Member. Member. President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
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.