DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, RAYAGADA,
STATE: ODISHA.
C.C. Case No. 146/ 2014. Date. 3.8. 2017.
P R E S E N T .
Sri GadadharaSahu, B.Sc. President I/C.
Smt. Padmalaya Mishra, LL.B. Member
Smt. Manorama Padhi, W/O: Satyanarayana Padhi, Po/Dist.Rayagada,State: Odisha. …….Complainant
Vrs.
1.Sri M.A.Rahman, S/O: Mohammed F.Rahman, Sr. Resident Manager, Zam Engineering & Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Asma Gate, Godeyvari Street, Visakhapatnam- A.P.
.…..Opp.Parties
Counsel for the parties:
For the complainant: - Self.
For the O.P:- 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 payment of Electrical dues. The brief facts of the case has summarised here under.
That the complainant is the owner of an apartment at Plot No. 1307, Flat No. 2-A, Expo tower, Raghunathpur, PS: Nandakanan, Bhubneswar and the O.P. had taken the said flat on monthly rent basis on 10th. Day of October, 2012 where in he had agreed to pay the electricity consumption charges every month. The O.P had vacated the house during the month of September, 2013 and he had not paid the electricity charges amounting to Rs. 26,173/- and the complainant had asked the O.P. to pay the same. The complainant had repeatedly asked him to pay the money even after he vacated the quarter without any intimation and though he had promised to pay the same. Hence this case filed by the complainant to get relief. The complainant prays the forum to direct the O.P. to pay the same with interest and award monetary compensation for the financial loss and mental agony and award cost of litigation and such other reliefs as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.
On being noticed the O.P. filed written version and contended that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or facts and it is liable to be dismissed. The O.P. does not admit any of the allegations made in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted herein and put to strict proof of the same. As per the agreement entered by the complainant with the O.P. any dispute arises or any violation of terms and condition by either parties, affected party should have the the right to take shelter in the court of law under Bhubaneswar jurisdiction only for relief. The O.P. is not provider of services to the complainant. In fact the O.P’s relationship with the complainant is tenant and land lord as per the agreement entered between them on Dt. 6.10.2012 regarding the plot No. 1307, Bhubaneswar for a monthly rent of Rs.14,000/- for 11 month only exclusive of electricity and O.P. kept Rs. 30,000/- with complainant as security returnable at the time of vacating the premises. The preliminary objection regarding to the jurisdiction to be decided first because as a land lord complainant has no jurisdiction to file complaint in this forum as per agreement. The complainant can only recover the claim through civil court by filing money suit. Hence the complainant may be dismissed.
The O.P appeared and filed written version. Arguments from the O.Ps and from the complainant. Heard & perused the record, documents, filed by both the parties.
FINDINGS.
On perusal of the complaint petition and written version it is revealed that the O.P’s relationship with the complainant is tenant and land lord as per the agreement entered between them on Dt. 6.10.2012. Further it is observed as per the agreement entered by the complainant with the O.P. any dispute arises between the parties aggrieved party should have the right to take shelter in the court of law under Bhubaneswar jurisdiction only. Again it is observed as a land lord complainant has no jurisdiction to file complaint in this forum as per agreement.
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 Electricity charges has not paid 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. It is open to complainant ordinary remedy to approach proper forum.
So to meet the ends of justice the following order is passed.
ORDER.
In the result with these observations, findings, discussion the complainant is free to approach the court of competent having its jurisdiction. Parties are left to bear their own cost. Accordingly the case is closed.
Dictated and corrected by me
Pronounced on this 3rd. Day of August, 2017.
Member. President
