Date of Filing : 16.04.2012

  Date of Order : 21.05.2012

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR

Dated 21^st MAY 2012

PRESENT

Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL,   …….                PRESIDENT

Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB.                        ……..     MEMBER

Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, B.A., LLB.                    ……..     MEMBER

CC No. 50 / 2012

Raghunatha Babu.N.V.

Proprietor, M/s. Gayathri Ads,

Creative Auto Ads Pole Ads & Out Door Ads,

Office at No. M-6, Industrial Area,

Near Clock Tower,

Kolar – 563 101.                                                     ……. Complainant

V/s.

The General Manager / Managing Director,

Serve & Volley,

Regd. Office 23-A, 2^nd Floor,

Imperial Court, Cunningham Road,

Bangalore – 560 052.                                              …… Opposite Party

ORDER

By Smt. K.G. SHANTALA, MEMBER

The Complainant has filed the Complaint u/s. 12 of C.P. Act seeking direction against the Opponent to pay remaining amount of Rs.35,000/- with interest @ 18% P.A. from 27.04.2010 till date and also compensation of Rs.15,000/-.

2.       Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant is an advertising Agency creating Creative Ads, Auto Ads, Pole Ads and Outdoor Ads etc., all over Karnataka for livelihood.  OP is the M.D. of Serve & Volley Office at Bangalore. The OP Company had placed orders for displaying of printing, mounting of flex design boards in Bangalore, Peenya, measuring 40 x 20 board and gave P.O. to the Complainant on 05.04.2010 vide P.O. No. SAV/GOM/615/2010-2011.  The total cost shown in the P.O. from 07.04.2010 to 27.04.2010 for 21 days only is Rs.35,000/-.  The Complainant submitted all the Bills and Photographs to the OP Company on 03.06.2010 for having fulfilled the work entrusted.  He made several requests to OP and gave requisition to OP for payment of Rs.35,000/- on 19.08.2011, but received no reply or response and hence the Complaint.

3.       The OP though served with notice did not file Vakalath or version.

4.       The relief sought by the Complainant is with regard to non performance of contractual obligation i.e., non-payment of dues of Rs.35,000/- towards work undertaken by the Complainant.  The Complainant is not a consumer as defined u/s. 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act, but service provider who has rendered service to OP.  Having failed to establish that he is consumer, he is not entitled to any relief.  The Complainant does not come within the definition of “Consumer” as enunciated u/s. 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The nature of dispute between the Complainant and the OP is one of the contractual obligation and not Consumer – Service Provider relationship.  As the Complainant has failed to prove that he is a consumer under OP, he cannot seek redressal in this Forum. 

5.       This is neither a case of sale of goods nor of hiring of a service as contemplated by the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act) and hence the complainant cannot be regarded as a ‘consumer’ falling within the scope of the definition of the said expression contained in Section 2(1) (d) (i) of the Act.  [(1981) I CPJ 169 Vinodani Bajpai V/s. Rajya Krishi Udapadan Mandi Parishat]

6.       On perusal of the Complaint pleadings and documents, the points that arise for our consideration are:

(A)     Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint?

          (B)     If so, to what relief/s the Complainant is entitled?  

7.       Our findings are:

          (A)     Negative

          (B)     As per detailed order for the following reasons

REASONS

8.       The complaint averments and documents reveal that the purchase Order, work undertaken are in respect of

for which the cause of action has not arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  The OP is not residing within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Section 11(2)(a) of C.P. Act reads as follows:

“Complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction – The opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or has a branch office or personally works for gain”

9.       As per Sec. 11(2)(a) of C.P. Act, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the above Complaint for lack of jurisdiction.  Therefore, the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.   Hence, we proceed to pass the following order: 

ORDER

1.       Complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

2.       Send copy of the Order to the parties concerned free of cost.

3.       Return extra sets to the parties concerned under Regulation 20(3) of Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21st day of May 2012)

T. NAGARAJA          K.G.SHANTALA           H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO

    Member                         Member                                       President

SSS