The instant case was started on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by one Abdus Sattar S/o. Late Lal Mahamod of Vill:- Jiyagachi, P.O. Damaipur, P.S. Chanchal, Dist. Malda, u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 registered as Complaint Case No. 56/2017.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the predecessor of the complainant purchased land under JL No. 110 of Khatian No. 250 of Mauja Sambhunagar to the extent of area 17 Decimal that the land is situated by the side of National Highway. It has been further stated that the land was purchased by the predecessor of the complainant for erecting dwelling house but due to the financial crisis it has not been possible to built up dwelling house for which the complainant is cultivating the land by growing jute plant.

It has been further stated that on 25/05/2017 the O.Ps without any notice and without any information cut down the standing jute plant and stack. It has been further stated that due to electrification of the high voltage line of 33000 volt all the stack jute plant was burn. The complainant several times requested the O.Ps but all his requests were in vain this is why the complainant on 29/05/2017 lodged a diary at the Chanchal P.S. The I.C. Chanchal P.S. did not take any action for which the complainant has come to the Forum for compensation. The petition has been contested by the O.Ps by filing the written version denying all material allegation as leveled against the O.Ps contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in its present form.

The further defense case is that the complainant is not at all a ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 if there be any grievance against the O.P. that can be ventilated in the proper Forum. So the case is liable to be dismissed.

In order to prove the case the complainant was examined as P.W.-1 and cross-examined in the form of quarries. On the other hand no evidence was adduced on behalf of the O.P.s.

Now the point for determination.

Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

::DECISION WITH REASONS::                                                                  

Now the main point is to be considered whether the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ under the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the definition of a ‘Consumer’ as mentioned in Sec. 2 (d) ‘Consumer’ means ‘ Any person  who,

i) 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

ii) [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] So according to the definition as mentioned in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’. The main grievance of the complainant is that the jute plant has been destroyed by the O.Ps due to installation of 33000 volt high power line. If the jute plant is at all destroyed the proper remedy for getting compensation is lying with the Civil Court. So on considering the facts and circumstances it is found that the complainant is not at all a ‘Consumer’ under the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for

C.F. Paid is correct.

Hence, ordered that

the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.

Let a copy of this order be given to the complainant free of cost on proper application.