CC Filed on 15.02.2011
Disposed on 23.09.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 23rd day of September 2011
PRESENT:
HONORABLE T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH, President.
HONORABLE K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 22/2011
Between:
Sri. Govindappa, S/o. late Munishamappa, Aged about 50 years, Resident of Tamaka, Kolar (By Advocate Sri. T. Sunil & others) | ….Complainant |
V/S The Commissioner,City Municipal Council, Kolar. (By Advocate Sri. T.G. Manmatha Reddy & others) | ….Opposite Party |
ORDER ON I.A. No.1
This application is filed by the Opposite Party Under Section 151 of C.P.C praying to dismiss the complaint as not maintainable. In the affidavit accompanying the application, it is stated that there is no relationship of ‘Consumer’ and the complaint is not maintainable and it may be dismissed. The complainant filed objection contending that in the version, there is no pleading that the complaint is not maintainable and only to protract the proceedings this application is filed and it may be dismissed.
2. The question that arises for consideration is:
Whether the complaint is maintainable?
3. In our opinion the complaint is not maintainable for the following reasons:
The allegations of the complainant is that the Opposite Party who is the City Municipal Council has called for tenders for supply of drinking water to the Kolar Town and the complainant has supplied water and relating to it the Opposite Party is liable to pay Rs.3,48,480/-. It is stated that the complainant has performed his duty and there is no deficiency in service by the complainant and inspite of it, the Opposite Party has not paid the amount. The Opposite Party in its version has contended that there is no relationship of ‘Consumer’ and ‘Consignee’ and the complaint is not maintainable. In our opinion this contention of the Opposite Party is acceptable. In this case, it is the complainant who is the service provider and no service is required to be done by the Opposite Party. Hence there is no relationship of ‘Consumer’ and ‘Service Provider’ relating to this dispute and the dispute does not constitute a ‘Consumer Dispute’. On the other hand it is a dispute for non-payment of the money to the complainant as agreed and that does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence we hold that there is no relationship of ‘Consumer’ and ‘Service Provider’ and the complaint is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. Hence the application is liable to be allowed. Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The application is allowed. It is held that the complaint is not maintainable, consequently the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 23rd day of September 2011.
K.G.SHANTALA T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH
MEMBER PRESIDENT
