CC Filed on 06.06.2011
Disposed on 09.12.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 09th day of December 2011
PRESENT:
HONORABLE T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH, President.
HONORABLE T.NAGARAJA, Member.
HONORABLE K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 139/2011
Between:
Sri. Chikkakempaiah, S/o. late. Hanumanthappa, Aged about 65 years, R/o. Kembodi Village and Post, Kolar Taluk & District. (By Advocate Sri. T.R. Jayaram) | ….Complainant |
V/S 1. The District Health & Family Welfare Office, K.N.S Post, Bangarpet Road, Kolar – 563 101. Represented by its Officer. 2. The District T.B. Office, Dist. Health Office Premises, K.N.S Post, Bangarpet Road, Kolar – 563 101. Represented by its Officer. | ….Opposite Parties |
ORDER
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to pay the arrears of vehicle hiring charges of Rs.64,500/- to him along with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of due till its realization and to grant Rs.10,000/- as against the Opposite Parties towards the deficiency in service rendered by them for non-payment of the same.
2. The complainant submits that he is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. KA-26/M-3336 which was hired by the opposite parties on a monthly hiring charges of Rs.19,400/- per month for every 2500 kms. and if it exceeds the same Opposite Parties have to pay Rs.5/- for a period from 17.10.2009 to 16.10.2010. The complainant further submits that Opposite Parties have paid the monthly rents to the complainant up to 15.07.2010 and then the Opposite Parties were due for a period of 03 months i.e. from 15.07.2010 to 16.10.2010. Though the complainant had already submitted bill for Rs.64,500/- for the said due period, the Opposite Parties have not paid the same and kept postponing payment on one pretext or the other. The complainant submits that he was facing financial crisis to run his business and he was in urgent need of funds as such he orally requested and demanded the Opposite Parties several times to pay the said due amount. The Opposite Parties have not paid the same till date, which is nothing but deficiency in service on their part. The complainant issued legal notice on 21.04.2011 through his Counsel to the Opposite Parties requesting and demanding to settle the said amount due by them. Though the said notice was served on 22.04.2011 to the Opposite Parties, they neither complied nor replied to the same till today, which is nothing but deficiency in service on their part. The cause of action for filing the complaint arouse on 21.04.2011 i.e. the date of issue of legal notice and 22.04.2011 i.e. the date of service of the said legal notice to the Opposite Parties.
3. After filing of the above complaint, one Sri. S.G. Narayanaswamy, Doctor who is in-charge D.H.O (Opposite Party No.1) appeared in person and filed version stating D.H.O is not a necessary party as the agreement entered into was between the complainant and Opposite Party No.2 and therefore the complainant be directed to sort out his grievances directly with Opposite Party No.2.
4. Opposite Party No.2 though served with notice preferred to remain ex-parte. The complainant reiterated the complaint averments in his affidavit and also filed written arguments.
5. The points that arise for our consideration are:
Point No.1: Whether there is relationship of ‘consumer’ and
‘service provider’ between complainant and
Opposite Parties?
Point No.2: Whether the complainant has proved the alleged
deficiency in service by the OP?
Point No.3: To what order?
6. Our findings to these points are as hereunder:
1. Negative
2. Negative
3. As per final order.
R E A S O N S
7. POINT NO.1: From the complaint averments, affidavit, written arguments and documents filed by the complainant it can be concluded that the complainant being a ‘service provider’ to the Opposite Parties cannot claim to be consumer under Opposite Parties. Infact the Opposite Parties are the consumers under him. The complainant is not a ‘consumer’ by any stretch of imagination but ‘service provider’ hired by the Opposite Parties who are ‘consumers’ under him. When the complainant has failed to prove that he is ‘consumer’ he cannot seek any relief against the Opposite Parties. The complainant has failed to prove that there is relationship of ‘consumer’ and ‘service provider’ between the complainant and the Opposite Parties, but it goes without saying that this complaint has been filed by the complainant for recovery of outstanding dues from the Opposite Parties. If at all there is violation of any contractual obligation, such a dispute would not come within the purview of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Since the above complaint is clearly for recovery of dues from the Opposite Parties this Forum has no jurisdiction to try a dispute of this nature.
8. POINT NO.2: Since point No.1 is held in negative, the point No.2 does not arise for consideration.
9. POINT NO.3: Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is dismissed with liberty to complainant to file a civil suit. No costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 09th day of December 2011.
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
