Orissa

Rayagada

CC/344/2016

Sri Rabindranath Panda - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Engineer RWS - Opp.Party(s)

Self

02 Feb 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

C.C. Case  No.344 / 2016

                                                                                               

             P R E S E N T .

            Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

            Sri Gadadhara Sahu, B.Sc,                                      Member

 

            Sri  Rabindranatha Panda, S/o Sri Lokonath Panda, aged about 30 years, Resident of         Agraharam Street, PO: Gunupur, P.S.Gunupur Tahasil, Gunupur, Dist. Rayagada,          Odisha.                                                                                         …………..Complainant

                                                            Versus

1. The Executive Engineer, RWS&S Division, Rayagada, Po/Dist. Rayagada, Odisha.
2. Asst. Executive Engineer, PO: Ramanaguda, Dist. Rayagada, Odisha.
3. Superintending  Engineer, RWS&S Circle, Koraput, P.O. Koraput, Dist. Koraput, Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ……………..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the Parties:

For the complainant: Sri V.R.M.Patnaik, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps: Self

 

                                                JUDGMENT

                        The  facts of the case in brief is that the complainant   is an unemployed  person and to maintain his family he has purchased a Tata Indigo  Vehicle and registered  the vehicle vide  registration No. OD 10B 6222 and he approached the OP1 to engage his vehicle  on hire basis on monthly payment basis and the OP 1 agreed to take his vehicle on hire basis and negotiated  the vehicle  and issued a letter to the complainant vide letter No.1752 dt.01.07.2016. The complainant handed over the vehicle to the OP  2  as per the directions of the OP 1 on dt.01.04.2016 and the complainant reported  before the OP 2 along with  his driver . The OP 1  has made an agreement with the complainant and it was agreed and fixed  at Rs.17,900/- per month, irrespective of distance and mileage travelled in a month and the payment for the  above will be made on a monthly  basis on submission of bill and the amount of hire charges includes towards the salary of the driver, service repair and maintenance of the vehicle and  all other incidental expenses but excludes the cost of fuel and lubricants. The period of contract is for six months from 01.04.2016 to 30.09,2016 and the contract can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason thereof.  As per the agreement the complainant submitted the bills  for the period from 01.04.2016 to 30.06.2016 for a period of three months before the OP 2  and the OP 2 sent the bills to the OP 1 and the claim amount as per the agreement has been paid by the OP 1 and the complainant has received  the claim amount. Then the  OP 2 used vehicle from 01.07.2016to 30.09.2016  for  a period of three months  and the complainant submitted bills  for an amount of Rs.23,562.60  before the OP 2 and the OP 2  sent the bills to the OP 1  but the OP 2 did not sent the monthly hire charges  for the rest two months amounting to Rs.35,800/-  . The OP 1 has not cancelled the agreement after month of July,2016  and continued to use the vehicle as per the agreement. The complainant claims an amount of Rs.59,362.60  from the OP 1. The complainant   approached the OP 1 & 2  several times for payment of the hire charges but they refused to pay the amount . Hence prayed to  direct the OPs to pay the said amount  along with compensation of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

                        Being noticed, the O.Ps appeared and filed written version inter alia denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars.  It is submitted by the Ops that the complainant  has made an agreement  with the OP1  for a period of six months i.e. from 1.04.2016 to 30.09.2016  and the vehicle was used by the OP 2 and  in course of time  the OP 2 was transferred  and handed over the complete charges to the present  OP 2 on dt.15.07.2016 and on dt.16.07.2016  the Ex-Asst. Engineer attended the Division Office and when  was asked  whether to continue the vehicle or not  he answered since the summer is over so no more need of any  vehicle   and the agreement  can be cancelled. From 16.07.2016  the complainant did not report  to the present  OP 2 . The complainant has been paid up to 30.06.2016  and non issue of cancellation of agreement  letter does not mean that  it is in force  and the complainant should be paid up to 30.07.2016  as per the statement  which the complainant should have settled in the Division Office.

                                         FINDINGS

In the course of hearing we heard from the parties at length and perused the complaint, counter, version of the Ops and the documents available in the record and  also gone through the arguments diligently. On receipt of the complaint petition from the  forum the Ops appeared through the OP 1 and  files objection stating therein that the complainant is not maintainable as the dispute is regarding violation of agreement and payment of the hire charges. The dispute is “commercial purpose” as per the statement of the complainant.

Regarding  the counter of the OP 1 it is noticed that without understanding the spirit of enactment and the demand made by the complainant may be commercial purpose, this clause “commercial purpose” does not include use  by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment and it is for their living. As such the  objection of OP 1  is not at all tenable.

The forum at first find the principle question that arise for our determination before going to the merits of the case in this complaint petition whether the petition is coming under the purview of the C.P.Act,1986.

It is held and reported in CPR 2009(I) page 164 the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi observed  after amendment by the Consumer Protection (Amendment ) Act, 2002(62 of 2002) Secti0ojn 2(1)(d)12 717 consumer- person excluded who availed services for commercial purpose who included in definition   by Amendment Act 2002.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the objection regarding maintainability of the present case before the forum  raised by the OP 1 and other Ops are hereby rejected. Hence in our considered opinion  the complainant is entitled to get relief.

On the strength of the aforesaid rulings of the Highest Judicial bodies of the Country the Forum allow the case. Hence, it is ordered.

                                                                     ORDER

            The OP1 is directed to pay the hire charges of the vehicle No. OD 10B 6222 as per agreement  an amount of Rs.59,362.60 along with Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order, filing which the Ops are liable to pay penal interest @ 10 % on the above amount till its realization.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 30^th   day of  December,2016 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

 

                 

                          Member                                                                           President