Orissa

Rayagada

CC/119/2016

Sri Debraj Naik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri T.Srinivas Rao - Opp.Party(s)

Self

08 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 119 / 2016.                                       Date.      8.   11 . 2017.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu,.                                                       Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,                                                 Member

 

Sri Debraj Naik,  S/O: Late Jayaram Naik, AT:Hadiguda, Po:Kucheipadar  Po/Dist.Rayagada,State:  Odisha.                                                                                                                                                  …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.Sri T.Srinivas Rao, Baplimali Bauxite Mines, UAIL Doraguda, Po:Tikiri, Dist:  Rayagada -765015, State  : Odisha.

2.The Chief Executive, UAIL, Dorgaguda, Tikiri, UAIL Doraguda, Po:Tikiri, Dist:  Rayagada -765015, State  : Odisha.                                                                                                                                    .…..Opp.  Parties

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.P  No.1:- Exparte.

For the O.P.No.2:- Sri N.K.Das, Advocate, Rayagada.

                                                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  hire charges towards Tipper Regd. No. OD-18-963 for the period  from  January, 2014 to  April, 2016. 

        On being noticed the O.P. No.1 neither appeared nor filed written version  inspite of  received notice from this forum. Hence the forum made set exparte to close the case in time bound.

        The O.P. No.2 appeared through  their learned counsel  and filed written version. The O.P No.2 contended since the details of the bills have not been given the O.P. No.2 has nothing to do in this regard.  More so because the complainant’s vehicle was said to have been engaged by the O.P. No.1 and the deal  was in between them.  The said complainant works under the said transport company and not under the O.P. No.2  and for non payment  of any pending dues and other benefits  it is the responsibility  of O.P. No.1 only and the  O.P. No.2 is not connected with  their affairs in any way. The  petition is not maintainable for the want of detail particulars of the claim made. Further it is noa consumer dispute and on the other hand it is civil dispute for  reconciling the dues if any of the complainant and the O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.2 prayed  the  District  forum be pleased to consider the above  submitted facts and dismiss  the complaint petition.  

The O.P  No.  2   appeared and filed their written version.  Arguments from the  learned counsels for  the O.Ps   and from the complainant  heard.   Perused the record, documents, filed by both  the parties. 

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

          FINDINGS.

      Regarding the contentions of the O.P. No.2 submitted   that the complaint petition  is not maintainable  in  this forum.

      We find 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  Tipper  on hire with the O.P. No.1. It may be that there is some amount  to be paid towards hire charges  by  O.P. No.1 , 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.

      Admittedly, in the case at hand,  the complainant has not availed any service nor purchased any goods from the  O.Ps 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 Consumer Forum,  can be a ‘Consumer’.

The grievance of the complainant  is  to be paid  by the  O.Ps  No.1  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 for seek    ordinary remedy by way of civil  court.       

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.  The  Complaint petition  is  hereby dismissed.  Parties are left to bear their own cost.  Accordingly the case  is closed.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this 8th.   Day of    November,   2017.

 

Member.                                             Member.                                              President