D.o.F:4/02/2013
D.o.O:13/12/2013
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO.50/13
Dated this, the 13th day of December 2013
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA K.G : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
1.Smt.Pathumma, W/o Abdulla.
2.smt.Kunhami, W/o Muhammad
3.Smt.Suhara, W/o Abdulla
4. Smt.Kunhasiya, W/o Muhammadkunhi : Complainants
All are R/at Moonam Mile, Pullur PO & Village
represented their P.a holder A.M.Basheer,
S/o Abdulla Haji, R/at Moonam Mile,
Pullur PO & Village Kasaragod.
The Manager, Infracture Viom Net Works Ltd,
J& Co. Chambers, 50/953, E2&E3, Manimala Road, : Opposite party
Edappaly , Kochi-24. Pin 682024.
ORDER
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
The brief facts of the case are that the complainants are in possession of 6 cents of land comprised in RS.No.58/1 of Ajanur Village and the said property is situates in Mavungal Town which is having high commercial centre and the opposite party obtained the aforesaid property for installing cell phone tower as licensee for a period of 15 years as per an agreement dt.17/9/2009, and as per the terms of the agreement the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.18,000/- per month by way of rent to the complainants. It is further submitted that the opposite party has put the mobile phone tower in the property by disturbing the topography of the property and damaging the same. On 28/4/2012 the opposite party has issued a notice by terminating the licence without any reason and without consulting with the complainants and the opposite parties terminated the license unilaterally and the opposite party was agreed to remove their tower and their equipments immediately and it is further submitted that opposite party failed to pay the licence fee etc. It is further submitted that the opposite party failed to pay the rent from April 2012 onwards and opposite party is liable to restore the property to the original position. Hence the complaint is filed alleging unfair trade practice.
Hence the question is whether the complainant is a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act.
Section 2(1)(d) in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
(d) consumer means any person who:
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and part by promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person.
Complainant’s counsel argued that complainant is a consumer and in order to prove his case he placed one decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Faquir Chand Gulati Vs. Uppal Agencies(P) Ltd held that Consumer Protection Act 1986 Sec.2(1)(d) g and (o) – a land owner who enters into an agreement with a builder for construction of an agreement building and for sharing of constructed area is a consumer entitled to maintain a complainant against builder as a service provider under this Act.
This decision is not applicable in the present complaint. In the above case the relation between land lord and the builder is the consumer and service provider. The land owner is getting service from the builder for consideration. In this case no consideration is moved from the complainant to opposite party and the complainant is not getting any paid service from the opposite party. Hence the complaint is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Hence the complaint is dismissed at the limine .
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva /Forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
