Anurag Kar filed a consumer case on 11 Aug 2017 against The E.E.-cum-Del in the Rayagada Consumer Court. The case no is CC/18/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 13 Oct 2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, RAYAGADA,
STATE: ODISHA.
C.C. Case No. 18/ 2017. Date. 22.9. 2017.
P R E S E N T .
Dr. Aswini Kumar Mohapatra, President.
Sri GadadharaSahu, B.Sc. Member
Smt. Padmalaya Mishra, LL.B. Member
Sri Anurag Kar, Ashok Nagar, Ist. Lane, Po/Dist.Rayagada,State: Odisha. …….Complainant
Vrs.
1.The Executive Engineer-Cum-DEI, Rayagada and 2 others.
.…..Opp.Parties
Counsel for the parties:
For the complainant: - Sri Gangadhar Padhi, Advocate, Rayagada.
For the O.P. No.1 & 3:- set exparte.
For the O.P. NO. 2 :- Self.
J u d g e m e n t.
The present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service against afore mentioned O.Ps for non refund of excess amount a sum of Rs.40,000/- deposited in the O.Ps account.
On being noticed the O.P No.2 filed written version and submitted that the complainant has no locus standi with the O.P. No.2 as the O.P. No.2 has got no relation with the complainant as a supplier of either goods or services so far the matter is concerned. The inspection fees was deposited through E-challan in the head of account of the Electrical inspectorate. The O.P. No.2 has no role in receiving /refunding the inspection charges made by the complainant, as sit is deposited in the head of account of the Electrical inspectorate, as the complainant had deposited excess amount, the complainant should now move to the Electrical inspectorate to get refund of the excess amount. The O.P. No.2 prays the forum to dismiss the proceeding for the best interest of justice.
The O.P. No. 1 & 3 set exparte.
Heard from the parties. Perused the documents filed by the parties.
During the course of hearing the O.P. No.2 filed the Odisha Gazette of Dt. 29.3.2002 which is marked as Annexure-I.
.
Section 2 (i) (d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 defines Consumer means any person who buys any goods or avails of any services for consideration he is a consumer. We observed in the present case the complainant has not purchased any goods or hires any service by paying consideration. Hence the complainant can not be treated as consumer under the C.P. Act.
On perusal of the complaint petition this forum observed that the matters relating to the excess amount has not refunded by the O.P. to the complainant will not comes under the purview of the C.P. Act, 1986. This forum has lack of jurisdiction to entertain the above dispute and adjudicate the same under the provisions of the C.P. Act, 1986. The case is not maintainable in view of the above discussion.
The grievance of the complainant can be raised before the appropriate court of law and not before this forum. We do not think proper to go into merit of this case.
Hence, the claim of the complainant can not be accepted under the provisions of the C.P. Act. So to meet the ends of justice the following order is passed.
ORDER.
In the result with these observations, findings, discussion the complainant the complaint petition is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost. Accordingly the case is closed.
Dictated and corrected by me
Pronounced on this 22nd Day of September, 2017.
Member. Member. President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.