Orissa

Rayagada

CC/431/2015

Iswar Gopalchetty - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Santosh Kumar Sahu - Opp.Party(s)

Self

24 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 431 / 2015.                                       Date.   24.11. 2017.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu, .                               Member.

Smt.  Padmalaya  Mishra,                          Member

Sri Iswar Gopal  Chetty,  S/O: Sri Gopal Chetty Gopalam,  Prop: Yoga Motors,  Po/Dist.Rayagada,State:  Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                                                 …….Complainant

Vrs.

Sri Santosh Kumar Sahu, S/O: Sri Surendra Kumar Sahu, Nua Street, Khollikot, Dist:Ganjam                                                                                    .…..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 refund of amount a sum of  Rs.7,00,000/- 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. 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’.

                         

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 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.

            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        24^th.   Day of   November,  2017.

 

                Member.                                             Member.                                                              President