COMPLAINT FILED ON:15.02.2012
DISPOSED ON:08.06.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
8th DAY OF JUNE 2012
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINANT | S.N.Subramanya (Senior Citizen 81 years), 118 ‘Lakshmikrupa “5th Main, I.T.I.Layout, Bensontown Bangalore-560 046. In person. V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTY | The Manager, Fairdeal Courier, New No.12, Old No.22, 1st Floor 5th Cross Street, Trustpuram, Chennai-600 024. Ex-parte. |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant in person filed this complaint U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act of 1986 seeking direction against the OP to compensate the complainant a total sum of Rs.3,500/- on the allegation of deficiency in service.
2. The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:-
The 4th Additional District Consumer disputes redressal Forum, Bangalore ordered on 8th April 2009 to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and cost in respect of the complaint No.22/2009 where in the notice sent under RPAD by Consumer Forum was refused by the OP and the complainant was forced to file the Execution Memo 106/2009 and 55/2010 and had to spenzÀ Rs.1500/- to get Rs.2,000/- that too after almost 33 months. Due to this delay of 3 years the complainant has to suffer mental agony and expense incurred as per Annexure and in spite of letters and number of telephone calls to the OP there was no response. OP is liable to compensate the complainant an amount of Rs.3,500/- as under.
1. Mental agony Rs.1500/-
2. Litigation cost Rs.1000/-
3. Misc Expense Rs.1000/-
Total Rs.3500/-
2. In spite of service of notice, OP failed to appear before this Forum, hence placed ex-parte.
3. The complainant in order to substantiate complaint averments filed his affidavit evidence.
4. Arguments from complainant side heard.
5. The point for our consideration is:
Whether the complainant is a “Consumer” as defined Under Section-2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and complaint is maintainable ?
6. We record our findings on the above point in the Negative:
R E A S O N S
7. As per Section-2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act “Consumer” means any person who buys any goods for consideration hires or avails of any services for consideration. From the complaint averments, it becomes clear that the complainant has neither purchased any goods nor availed any services of the OP for a consideration, as such the complainant cannot be considered to be a Consumer as defined Under Section-2(1)(d) of the Act.
From the complaint averments and arguments of the complainant, it becomes clear that the complainant filed complaint No.22/2009 before the 4th Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore against the present OP and that complaint was allowed directing the OP to pay sum of Rs.1,000/- as compensation and awarded cost of Rs.1,000/- with a direction to pay the same within 60 days from the date of the Order. That complaint was allowed on 08.04.2009. Annexure-6(a) is the copy of the Order. OP failed to comply the said Order and the complainant filed Execution Petition No.106/2009 and 55/2010. The amount of Rs.2,000/- was recovered after almost 33 months of the orders passed. It is contended by the complainant that OP purposely avoided to comply the Orders to pay the amount of Rs.2,000/- and he has not furnished his correct adress and Police has to make efforts to trace his address and then recovered the amount of Rs.2,000/-. Because of the Ops negligence and carelessness, the complainant has to suffer mental agony and incurred expenses. The complainant is entitled for recovery of Rs.3,500/- as shown in the complaint. In our view at the time of Execution proceedings itself, the complainant could have sought any amount by way of cost but no separate complaint Under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act could be filed to recover the amount by way of compensation. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the complaint is not maintainable. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed as not maintainable. Considering the nature of dispute no order as to costs.
Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 8th day of JUNE-2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
