Karnataka

Kolar

CC/45/2019

Sri.A.Narayanaswamy & Others - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Commissioner,City Municipality - Opp.Party(s)

M.P.NarayanaSwamy

11 Jul 2019

ORDER

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

 

Dated: 11^TH DAY OF JULY 2019

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

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

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 45 OF 2019

1) Sri.A.Narayanaswamy,

S/o.R.Anandappa,

Aged About 52 Years,

R/at: Keelukote, Kolar City.

 

2) Sri.Dharmendra,

S/o.R.Anandappa,

Aged 40 Years,

R/at: Keelukote, Kolar City.

 

3) Sri.M.Prakash,

S/o. late V.Malappa,

Aged 40 Years,

R/at: D.No.1569, Kurubarpet,

Kolar City.

 

4) Sri.N.Santhoshkumar,

S/o.M.V.Narayanappa,

Aged About 38 Years,

R/at: 1^st Cross, RTO Nagar,

Kolar City.

 

5) Sri.P.Venkatesh,

S/o.Prabhakar,

Aged About 28 Years,

R/at: Upparapet, Kolar City.

 

6) Sri.S.K. Prabhakar,

S/o.S.Krishnamurthy,

Aged About 48 Years,

R/at: Masthi Colony,

Opp. RTO Office, Kolar City.                                        ….  COMPLAINANTS.

(Rep. by Sri.M.P.Narayanaswamy, Advocate)

 

- V/s –

1) The Commissioner,

City Municipality,

Kolar City.

 

2) The Deputy Commissioner,

Kolar District, Kolar.                                                              …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

ORDER ON MAINTAINABILITY

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant has filed this complaint against OPs and prays to direct the OPs to settle the balance amount of Rs.18,35,357/- for the period from 01.07.2016 to 31.12.2016 towards supply of water as per the tender with interest, damages and such other reliefs.

 

02.   On perusal of the contents of the complaint it reveals that, the complainants are the owners of the tractor and water tanker and OP No.1 tendered the tractors for supply of water to the public under CRF, Draught relief Fund.  The complainant and others have supplied 5000 liters of water to the public at Rs.369.30 paisa per tank.  In all, up to 25.07.2017, the complainant and others have supplied water to the public amounting to Rs.339.58 lakhs, out of which 50% amount was released in favour of complainant and others and rest of the amount is to be disbursed.  OP No.1 has not released the same in spite of direction issued by OP No.2.

 

03.   The counsel for the complainant has vehemently addressed arguments with respect to Section 2(1)(d), 2(1)(f), 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in length and prays to issue notice against OPs.

 

04.   On perusal of the above said facts of the case on hand, it reveals about recovery of arrears of amount and it is in the nature of Civil litigation and the said dispute is for recovery of amount for the work done, is not a Consumer Dispute and there is no consideration for hiring service and the complainants are not consumers.

05.   The expression of Consumer has been defined Under Section 2(1)(d)(i)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 

Section 2(1)(d)(i)(ii) reads as under:-

(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 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.

On perusal of the same, it is of two fold, the first deals with goods and the other deals with service and it means purchase of goods for consideration and hires service for consideration, is a consumer, but here in this case on hand the complainants supplied water on the basis of tender and there is no any consideration as the complainants neither purchased any goods for consideration nor hires any service for consideration and it clearly reveals that, the complainants are not the consumers as contemplated Under Section 2(1)(d)(i)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

06.   Further the counsel for the complainant has also brought to the notice of the provision of Under Section 2(1)(f)(g) & (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and it reveals as under:-

Section 2(1)(f) reads as under:-

 (f) “defect” means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied, or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods;

 

 

Section 2(1)(g) reads as under:-

(g) “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.

Section 2(1)(o) reads as under:-

(o) “Service” means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.

The above said provision of law are not fitted in to within the purview of the consumer as defined Under Section 2(1)(d)(i)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in view of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. 

07.   Further it is relevant to state here that, on perusal of the facts of the case on hand, there is no direct nexus between the complainants and OP No.1 and there is no any contract between the complainants and OP No.1 regarding supply of water for consideration and there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  Hence the argument addressed by the counsel for the complainant is goes in vain.  When the complainants are not consumers the complaint before the Redressal Forum is not maintainable.

08.   Further it is relevant to state here that, on perusal of the complaint it reveals about joint complaint and the joint complaint is not maintainable and the joint complaint cannot proceed.  In this regard we rely judgment of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2017 (1) CPJ 169. 

09.   Hence under these circumstances as discussed above, the complaint filed by the complainants is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed in limine and we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint filed by the complainants is hereby dismissed as not maintainable. 

02.   The complainants are at liberty to approach the competent court of law if they desire.

03.   Office is directed to return the complaint along with documents to the complainant by keeping one set in the file.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 11^th DAY OF JULY 2019)

 

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                             PRESIDENT