Orissa

Rayagada

CC/343/2015

Sri Anupoju Laxman Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri V.Durga Prasad - Opp.Party(s)

Self

18 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No.343 / 2015.                                            Date.    18    .     8  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                             Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri Anupoju Laxman Rao, S/O: Late D.Dharmaraju, AT: Brahmin Street,  Po:Gunupur,       Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).             …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.Sri V.Durga Prasad, President, Master Satelite  Operator, City Cabale, At:Gouda Street, 

            Po:Gunupur,       Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).

2.The Manager,  Master Satelite Operator, Affilated  to Broad bond services,Bhubaneswar, Odisha.                                                         .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.P No1:- Sri V.R.M. Patnaik, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P. No.2:- Set  exparte.

JUDGMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non connect the cable  lines which the O.P. No.1 disconnected  and to receive the amount only for 400  number  consumers  cable  lines for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

On being noticed the O.P  No. 1 appeared through their learned counsel and filed   written version refuting allegation made against them.  The O.P No. 1  taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P  No. 1. Hence the O.P No.  1  prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

On being noticed  the O.P No. 2 neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  30 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No.2.  Observing lapses of around 3 years   for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P No.2 . The action of the O.P No .2   are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P No.2   was  set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

 

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.P  No. 2 & 3 and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                    FINDINGS.

On perusal  of the record  it is revealed that all the  cable   operators have come   under one union   and all the Cable Operators come under the same union. The said union  has allotted  different cable operators  different areas for their own operation.  The main grievance  of the complainant  is  that the O.P No. 1  is not providing the list of consumers in the allotted area to the complainant  which  were not provided to him and the O.P.  No.1   in a   arbitrary manner started the disconnection of service  from the  allotted area of the complainant. Hence the complainant has approached  this forum for the redressal.

The O.P. No.1 in their written version contended that the complainant is  not a consumer, rather  he is a member of the association and as per the resolution  he has to collect the monthly charges from the  house hold connections and to pay the O.P. No.1.  Since the  collected amount yet not  been   deposited   with the O.P. No. 1  as promised by him.  As he as not  paid the amount  and when  demand was made by the union he has filed the present case  and it is not maintainable   in the Consumer  Forum.

It is a  fact that  the  complainant is a member of the union is admitted.  It is also seen from different resolutions passed by the union in its meetings it is clearly reveals  that the complainant   was not regularly depositing the service charges of the consumes of his area to the union.  Since he  is to  the hire the  charges   to different  channels and the O.P. No.1   being an elected president of the union has no other option than to disconnection  the services lines  for default in  payment  in order to avoid loss to the union  as a whole.

It is a cclear case of the complainant is that he became member of the union of Cable operators and by such action the entire consumers to whom the complainant was providing  service were  became the consumers of the O.P. and the complainant being a members  of the said union is  entrusted with the task of collections of monthly service charges from  the customers who availing cable Net works service have become the consumers of the O.P.  with this  resolution by the cable operators.   Hence the complainant is not a consumer  is  only a service provider  who  acting for the interest of the consumers and to work for the Union of cable operators.  Hence the complainant is not  coming under the purview of     the C.P. Act since he is not the consumer and he is  only a service provider   by the resolution of the union of cable operators  and the complainant  is discharging  the duty of the collection agent.

It is the specific case of the O.P. No.1 that the complainant has violated all the terms and conditions of the agreement   entered into between him and the union and he was  collecting the monthly charges from the consumers   but not depositing the amount with the  union and when the O.P. being the President of the union demanded the payment so far  he had  filed the present case.

The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 has relied  citation during the course of hearing.  It is held and reported  in A.I.R 1981  S.C. 1368 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court  observed “ Ordinarily where a breach of contract is complained, a party complaining of such breach may sue for  specific performance of the contract, if the contract is capable of being   specifically performed, or the party  may sue for damages.  Such a suit would ordinarily be cognizable  by a civil Court. A right to relief flowing from a contract has to be claimed  in a Civil Court  where a suit for specific performance of contract or for damages could be filed. This is well settled that no authority is needed”.

It is submitted by the complainant that  before taking  the action of   disconnection the O.Ps have not given him any chance to  explain and by doing so he has caused him and the consumers  under him to suffer. But the documents  relied upon by the O.P. No.1 clearly reveals that there is  metting of the union about the issue and it is resolved in the said meeting  that the amount due is to be paid by him and another members have agreed to pay the dues on installment basis  and they also agreed to abide by the rules of the union.

It is revealed  from the  complaint  that  the complainant is not a consumer and not  coming under the purview of the   C.P. Act, 1986..  So  far  he is not bonafied to file this case and entitled to  get  relief sought for.       As such the  dispute alleged in the petition is already resolved and the complainant  has violated the same also. Hence  the complainant having not approached  this forum with clean hands  rather he being not a consumer under the C.P.Act, 1986 has approached  further  relief which can not be granted by the Consumer Forum. Hence the interim order passed by this forum on Dt. 24.8.2015  stands vacated.

Since  the consumers under him were  enrolled as consumers of the union  of Cable operators after the amalgamation of the  services provided  by the complainant prior to that formation and as such the consumers of the city cable union is to pay  the monthly  charges to the union as per the demand without intervention of the complainant  through its authorized  persons and if any disconnection is made by the O.P.  it may cause hard ship to them due to the fault committed  by the complainant.

Hence the O.P. No.1  who is the President of the union is advised to telecast the payment dues to  independent   consumers through their   cable   net works and if the demand is not fulfilled by the consumers, then he may opt for disconnection.

In view of the above  discussion, the petition  of the complainant is  not maintainable.  The grievance of the complainant can be raised  before the appropriate court of law and not before this forum.  As the   case is not maintainable before the 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, 1986.   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 resultant the complaint petition 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  disposed of.

           

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this           18th         Day of   August,  2018.

 

                Member.                                             Member.                                                             President