Orissa

Rayagada

CC/175/2015

Sri Gangadhar Padhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Prasanta Kumar Palo - Opp.Party(s)

Self

18 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 175 / 2015.             Date.     4.9.  2017

P R E S E N T .

Sri  Gadadhara Sahu, B.Sc.                                                            President  I/C.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,  LL.B                                                    Member

 

Sri Gangadhar Padhi,  S/O: Sri Somanath  Padhi, Raniguda Farm, Po/  Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).                                                                  …. Complainant.

Versus.

The Prasanta Kumar Palo, S/O: G.K.Palo, Retd. Teacher, Kasturi Nagar,

Po/  Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).                                                    … Opposite parties.

For the Complainant:-Self..

For the O.P:- in person.

JUDGMENT

                The  present dispute 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 Rs.20,000/- which had taken for personal problem and  cheque bounce.

 

            On being noticed the  O.P. appeared  before the forum and submitted that the allegation made by the complainant is  false and  fabricated and also not judicious and created  for the case purpose. He is not a consumer so this case is not maintainable as per law.  The complainant is  not  a consumer as per the  Section-12 of the C.P. Act. Neither he has given   any service to the O.P. for which any payment was considered by any party at any time nor he purchased any goods and paid considerations for the goods purchased.  The O.P. prays the forum to dismiss this case with compensation and mental agony for the best interest of justice.

The O.P appeared and filed their written version.  Arguments from the    O.Ps and from the  complainant  heard.   Perused the record, documents, filed by both  the parties. 

The O.Ps  vehemently advanced arguments touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

 

 

          FINDINGS.

            The O.P. vehemently argued that the present complaint is not maintainable  before the forum. Section 2 (i) (d) (ii) of  the  C.P. Act, 1986   defines  Consumer means any person who buys any goods  or avails of any services   for consideration he is a consumer. We observed  in the present case the complainant has not purchased any goods  or hires any service by paying consideration. Hence the complainant can not be treated as consumer  under the C.P. Act.

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.  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 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.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this        4th.            Day of   September,                           2017.

 

                                                                Member.                                                              President