Orissa

Rayagada

CC/312/2016

SRI Ragahunath Samantra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Gyanjit Nayak - Opp.Party(s)

Self

21 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 312 / 2016.                                       Date.  21. 11 . 2017.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu, .                               Member.

Smt.  Padmalaya  Mishra,                          Member

Sri Raghunath  Samantray, S/o: Sri Neeladri Samantray, Raiguda Farm, Po/Dist.Rayagada,State:  Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                                                 …….Complainant

Vrs.

Sri Gyanjit Nayak,  S/O: Sri Dilip Kumar Nayak, Irrigation colony, Vill/Po:Mukhiguda,    PS: Jayapatna, Dist:Kalahandi, (Odisha).                                             .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri S.Gagdish Kumar, Advocate, Rayagada.

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 payment of amount a sum of  Rs.14,25,000/- towards rental  dues of Excavator..

 

          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) 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. We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.

 

 

         FINDINGS.

            At this stage, it is apposite to quote Section  2(1)(d) of C.P. Act,  which reads as follows:-

            “(d)”Consumer” means any person who-

1. 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; or
2. Hires or avails of any services 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 beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails  of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and  partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed  of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose”.

 

            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 be  said that any body who files a case before the District Forum,  as the case may be he can be  a ‘consumer’.

                         

      We observed that the complainant is not a consumer as he is not coming  within the definition  of ‘consumer’ as mentioned Under Section  2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act. Rather  he was  the service provider and had engaged  his  Excavator  on hire with the O.P.  It may be that there is some amount  to be paid towards hire charges  by  the O.P.  , but that does not form the basis for filing a Consumer Complaint.  Since the complainant was service provider and was not a consumer as we have already stated, the complaint was not at all maintainable before the Forum.

      On  Dt. 10.2.2012  in First  Appeal No. 452 of 2011   the Hon’ble State C.D.R.Commission, Cuttack  where in  observed  that the service providers  are not consumer  under the C.P. Act,1986.

The grievance of the complainant  is  to be paid  by the  O.P  towards hire charges   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 hereby  stands  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.

            We appreciate the zeal of the complainant in filing a complaint,  but we  are to regret that the complaint did not lie here and we have got no option but to dismiss the complaint petition.  However, the complainant is free to approach the court of competent having its jurisdiction.  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, as per the law laid   down by  the Hon’ble  Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering works Vrs. P.S.G.Industrial Institute 1995 (3) SCC  583.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this        21^st.            Day of   November,                           2017.

 

                Member.                                             Member.                                                              President