Date of Filing-7.2.2013

                                                                                           Date of Disposal-26.3.2014

                                                                                            O R D E R

Miss S.L.Pattnaik,President 

            The brief facts of the case is that the complainant who is an unemployed youth has started an agency in the name and style “21^st Century Advertising Agency” by taking all types of advertising works in the state of Odisha and there by receiving cost for the same for the maintenance of his livelihood. The Opposite Party vide letter  of intent dated 8.6.2009/4.7.2009 and dt. 4.7.2009 instructed the  complainant to carryout the jobs.  The complainant after completions of the works submitted invoice before the O.P for necessary payments.  But out of the total amount of Rs.3,87,280.00 the O.P. paid a sum of Rs.1,92,250/- keeping balance of Rs.1,95,030.58 paise.  The complainant requested several times to the O.P for payment of the balance amount but the O.P pay no heed.  So the complainant issued legal notice to which the O.P although respond but did not settled the balance amount.

            Being aggrieved the complainant has filed this case before this Forum with a prayer  to direct the O.P. to pay Rs.1,95,030/- the balance amount along with interest @15% per annum.

            ii)to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards harassment and mental agony.

            iii) to pay Rs.7,500/- towards cost of the litigation and any other order as deems fit and proper.

            In support of his case the complainant has filed certain documents which are placed on record.  The complainant has also filed  decisions of  Hon’ble National Commission, Delhi in support of his case.

            Notice was duly served on the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party appeared through learned counsel on dt. 17.4.13 and filed written version on dt. 8.7.2013 denying all the allegations raised by the complainant.  In the written version the Opposite Party raised the point that since the complainant is not a consumer and the O.P. is not a service provider, therefore, the case is not maintainable as it is not fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act,1986. He further submit that the present dispute is purely a money suit, therefore, the case is liable to be dismissed.

            We perused the records and heard the learned counsel for both the parties.  After going through the pleadings and documents the main issues arise for consideration is whether the complainant is a consumer of the O.P. or not.

            According to the complainant, as per the letter of intent of O.P. he has done all the job works of O.P but the O.P. has paid only Rs.1,92,250/- and the balance amount was not paid after submission of the invoice.

            Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 defines “consumer” means any person who hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment.  So in the instant case, no consideration was paid by the complainant to the Opposite Party and in this case complainant had provided service to the Opposite Party.  So the complainant is a service provider in this case.  The complainant does not disclose any relationship of a consumer and provider of service between them.  Moreover,the Opposite Party is not rendering any service to the complainant.  The complainant was providing service to the O.P under a contract of personal service which excludes him to become a consumer u/s.2(o) of the C.P.Act.  Besides, it is purely a dispute regarding settlement of account which does not come under the category of  ‘consumer dispute’.  In view of this, we are of the opinion that the complainant prima-facie is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P.Act. and the complaint before the Consumer Forum is not maintainable.

            Therefore, the complaint petition filed by the complainant stands dismissed.  However, the complainant is at liberty to prefer his claim before the proper court of law.  In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost.

            Copy of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.

            Dictated and corrected by me on this 26^th day of March,2014

            (Dr.N.Tuna Sahu)            (Mrs.M.Pradhan)             (Miss S.L.Pattnaik)

            I agree(Member)            I agree(Member)                   President