Karnataka

Kolar

CC/62/2016

R.Jayaram - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Commissioner - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.D.V.Lakshminarayana

04 Apr 2017

ORDER

Date of Filing: 05/10/2016

Date of Order: 04/04/2017

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 04^th DAY OF APRIL 2017

PRESENT

SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., BAL LLM, PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB           ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 62 OF 2016

Sri. R. Jayaram,

S/o. Ramappa,

Aged 60 Years,

1^st Main Road, Gulpet,

Kolar.                                                       ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. D.V. Laxmi Narayana, Advocate)

 

- V/s -

The Municipal Commissioner,

Office of the City Municipality,

Kolar.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. T.G.Manmatha Reddy, Advocate)         …. OPPOSITE PARTY.

-: ORDER:-

 

BY SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint on hand as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short, it is referred as “the Act”) has sought issuance of directions to OP to pay Rs.50,000/- towards work entrusted to the complainant along with interest, to pay Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation costs.

 

 

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, complainant being a license holder of Plumbing work from the past several years being an experienced contractor OP entrusted a drainage work at 4^th Ward, Soppinathota, 2^nd Main Road, Kolar.  After completion of the said work complainant submitted bill to OP and requested OP for payment, but till today the OP did not complied. 

 

(b)    Further contention of the complainant is that, as per the OP work order bearing No.JLPR/505/2000-01, dated: 25.03.2001 the complainant had finished all the works which were entrusted to him that is to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (as per the S.R. Rate) by the OP.  Constrained by the said act of the OP, complainant wrote to OP’s higher officials on 17.01.2011 and requested them to make payment of the work order bill.  In this regard the Higher Officials of the OP wrote to Planning Director, Kolar, to look in to the matter.  Hence on 14.02.2011 The Planning Director, Kolar, also wrote a letter bearing No.244/2010-11 to OP directing him to look in to the matter immediately.   

 

(c)    Further submission of the complainant is that, on 15.07.2013 complainant issued legal notice to the OP, but OP did not bother to give any reply.  On 28.03.2013 and on 30.03.2013 complainant sought information pertaining to the above work order under RTI Act, but the concerned Information Officer of the OP has failed to give the said information in time.  The complainant appealed before the Planning Director on 16.05.2013, for which also the OP did not care at all.  Finally complainant lodged an appeal before the Karnataka Information Commission, Bangalore.  The Hon’ble Karnataka Information Commission after perusing the matter on 31.01.2014, 10.02.2014, 17.02.2014 and 26.02.2014 ordered OP to submit all the documents and registers pertaining to the above work order.  The complainant alleged that, Sri.Kodanda Ramaiah, a Junior Executive Engineer intentionally took all the concerned documents with him; hence Commission has ordered to make a departmental enquiry against Sri.Kodanda Ramaiah by issuing charge-sheet in Annexure-1 to 4 and the said appeal was closed.

 

(d)    In spite of making all the above efforts the complainant could not get relief, hence on 14.05.2013 complainant lodged a complaint before the Karnataka Lokayuktha against the OP.  Thereafter on 22.07.2013 OP issued notice to the complainant seeking production of concerned documents to the OP’s office and on 02.08.2013 complainant produced the same to the OP’s Office, but on 15.02.2014 OP taken a stand that, as the file pertains to old, after tracing the same, they will proceed to refer and make arrangement for payment.  Hence this complaint.

 

03.   In response to the notice served on the OP, counsel for OP appeared and submitted its written version by resisting the claim of the complainant in toto.

 

(a)    It is the contention of the OP that, as there is no relationship between the complainant and the OP, the petition is not maintainable and the meaning of “Consumer” will not be applicable to the case on hand.  The complainant is not a plumber and this OP has not entrusted any work to him and further complainant has not done any work which was entrusted to him and he has not submitted any bill to this OP.  It is true that before the RTI the petition filed by the complainant was dismissed.  The OP is not due of any amount to the complainant and OP has not entrusted any work to the complainant.  So contending, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

 

04.   On 06.12.2016 counsel for complainant has submitted complainant’s affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief.  On 20.02.2017 Sri.S.A. Ramprakash, S/o. Late M. Ashwatha Shetty, Commissioner at CMC, Kolar had submitted his affidavit evidence on behalf of the OP. 

 

05.   On 26.12.2016 counsel appearing for complainant has submitted written arguments of the complainant.  On 13.03.2017 we have heard the oral arguments of both sides.

 

06.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:-

(A)   Whether the complainant is a Consumer?

 

(B) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

 

(C) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OP and entitled for the relief sought for in the complaint?

 

(D)  What order?

 

07.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points are:-

POINT (A) & (B):- In the Negative

POINT (C):-          Does not arise for our

                           consideration.

 POINT (D):-         As per the final order

for the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT (A) TO (D):-

08.   The complainant submitted that, the complainant being a license holder for plumbing work and the OP entrusted for drainage work at 4^th Ward, Soppinathota, 2^nd Main Road, Kolar.  After completion of the said work the complainant submitted bill to the OP and requested OP for payment, but the OP had not made payment of the amount. 

 

09.   Per contra, the OP further submitted that, the complainant is not a consumer hence complaint is not maintainable.  Further OP submitted that, in the work order dated: 25.03.2001 is concocted and created one only for the purpose of filing of this case.  Further OP alleged that, in the work order there is no signature and also there is no office seal, hence the work order produced by the complainant is concocted and created one.  The OP further submitted that, in the work order the nature of work must be mentioned in the body of work order.  Such entrustment of work is not mentioned in the work order.  The OP further alleged that, in the work order the complainant himself has written.  The OP further alleged that, the complaint is filed before this forum is barred by limitation. 

 

10.   Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads thus:-

(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 under any system of deferred payments, 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];

 

[Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;]

 

11.   The first argument of the OP is that, the complainant is not a consumer.  On perusal of the documents produced by the complainant it is seen that, the work order issued by the Municipal council dated: 25.03.2001 there is no seal in the work order.  Moreover in the work order the complainant’s name, amount and work allotment were written by himself and the said documents is only a makeup documents to make this Forum believe.  Hence we hold that, this document produced by the complainant cannot be considered. Further the complainant has also not produced any bill or any photographs the work which he has done.  In the above facts and circumstances the complainant has failed to show that, he has availed any services from the OP.  Hence the complainant is not a “Consumer” Under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

12.   Further the above transaction had took place in the year 2001, but the complainant has filed this complaint on 05.10.2016.  Hence it is barred by limitation Under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Section 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986 reads thus:-

24A. Limitation period:-

1. The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

 

2.  Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission of the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:

 

PROVIDED that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

 

However the complainant has not produced any document to show that the cause of delay in filing this complaint and also not filed any application pertaining to condonation of delay.  Hence the complaint is not maintainable.

 

13.   Hence we hold that, in this case deficiency in service does not arise.  Hence we proceed to pass the following:-

 

ORDER

01.   Complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 04^th DAY OF APRIL 2017)

 

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT