O R D E R
SMT. G. VASANTHAKUMARI, PRESIDENT.
This I.A. has been put in by the opp.parties counsel praying to consider the question regarding the maintainability of the complaint before this forum as a preliminary issues alleging that the complainant in this case was a service provider to this opp.party as a Veterinary Surgeon for the examination and tagging of calves for the purpose of issuing cattle policy under the scheme calf feed subsidy program, that the complainant herself has admitted in para 3 of her complaint that she had caused to tag 612 calves during the period 2007-2009 and payment is due from the opp.party towards her tagging fees, that the relief sought by the complainant is for realization of the professional fee alleged to have due to her for the service rendered by her to the opp.party, that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ of the opp.party under the definition of Consumer Protection Act, that the complainant had not hired any service from the opp.party on consideration for claiming the status of a ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2 [1] [d] [ii] of the Consumer Protection Act and so the complaint is not maintainable before this forum.
It is opposed on the ground that the complainant is a consumer who rendered service to the opp.party by tagging 612 calves of the opp.party during the period 2007-2009, that since the complainant rendered service to the opp.party, there is consumer relationship between the parties and the complaint is maintainable before this forum
The only point that arises for consideration is:
Whether the IA is allowable or not?
The point:
Heard both sides. Admittedly the complainant in this case was a service provider to the opp.party as a Veterinary Surgeon for the examination and tagging of calves for the purpose of issuing cattle policy under the Scheme Calf Feed subsidy program. According to her she had caused to tag 612 calves during the period 2007-2009 and payment is due from the opp.party towards her tagging fees. Admittedly she had not hired any service from the opp.party on consideration for claiming the status of a ‘Consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Ac. By rendering service to opp.party she cannot claim that she is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. There existed no consumer and service provider relationship between the complainant and the opp.party enabling the complainant to approach this forum by making use of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. From the allegation and counter it appears that there remains some dispute between the parties regarding settlement of account, then, such dispute does not come in the category of ‘Consumer Dispute’ and the complainant was always free and is also still free to file civil suit to redress her grievances
Hence, the IA is allowed finding that the complaint is not maintainable before this forum.
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2012.
