BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No. 965 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.NO. 30 OF 2009 DISTRICT FORUM MAHABUBNAGAR
Between:
Smt M.Sumathi Reddy W/o M.Rama Krishna Reddy
Aged 48 yrs, Occ: Hire Bus Entrepreneur
PHB NO.AP22U/1965 R/o H.No.1-4-69, Near Town
Mahabubnagar
1. The Regional Manager
APSRTC, Mahabubnagar Region,
New Bus Stand, Mahabubnagar
2. The Chief Manager, APSRTC
Bus Bhavan RTC X Roads
Hyderabad
F.A.No. 966
Between:
Smt M.Sumathi Reddy W/o M.Rama Krishna Reddy
Aged 48 yrs, Occ: Hire Bus Entrepreneur
PHB NO.AP22U/1965 R/o H.No.1-4-69, Near Town
Mahabubnagar
1. The Regional Manager
APSRTC, Mahabubnagar Region,
New Bus Stand, Mahabubnagar
2. The Chief Manager, APSRTC
Bus Bhavan RTC X Roads
Hyderabad
Counsel for the Appellants
Counsel for the Respondent
QUORUM:
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
1.
2.
3. `75,000/- and the first respondent issued Termination Agreement by collecting an amount of`50,000/- from the appellant whereby the appellant suffered financial loss to the extent of`11,36,000/-.
4. `7,500/- was deducted for the non-operated period from 18.09.2007 to 30.09.2007. The appellant had not followed due procedure despite request made by the respondents and she could comply with the procedure on 15.09.2008 after which the respondents issued No Objections Certificate. It is contended that the appellant is not a consumer under te provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
5.
6.
7. `1,000/-towards processing fee and service charges for participating in auction and
8.
9. `1,000/- which according to the respondents is a processing fee and as per the version of the appellant , processing fee as well as service charges. Subsequently the route on which the Bus was agreed to ply was changed and the bus used to ply on the route, Narayanapet to Mahaboobnagar via Marikal for distance of 335 kms .
10. `50,000/- collected by the respondents for non-operative period as she terminated the agreement before the stipulated period of five years.
11.
As contended to by the learned counsel for the complainant it may be no doubt true that the complainant might have sustained some loss as alleged by her. But it is the case of the complainant that due to the breach of contract committed by the opposite parties she sustained the alleged loss. So it is clear from the record that the entire case rests upon the agreement entered into between both the parties. As per the provisions of the Act the complainant has to first satisfy the Forum that she is a Consumer. Here is the contention of the learned standing counsel for the opposite parties that the complainant is not at all a Consumer within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d) of the Act but in fact the OP-1 is the consumer who availed the services of the complainant by taking her bus on hire under a cover of agreement. As stated above it is a fact that the opposite parties called for tenders from the public to avail their services from any of the suitable person who offered lowest cost for hiring their bus to ply the same between Narayanpet to Atmakur via Marikal. This is the case where the complainant who admittedly came forward to render her services to the opposite parties by providing her bus on hire under a cover of agreement for operating between Narayanpet to Atmakur via Marikal. So under the said circumstances and as rightly contended to by the learned standing counsel for the opposite parties the complainant will not come under the definition of Consumer as defined U/Sec.2(1)(d) of C.P. Act. Therefore for the reasons stated above, we hold that the complaint is not maintainable under law before this Forum since she is not a Consumer. Further as stated above, we find that since the present dispute arose between both the parties is basing on the terms and conditions of the agreement as alleged by the complainant and since the complainant is not a Consumer as defined U/Sec.2(1)(d) of the Act the complainant has to seek her remedy only through the competent civil Court but not before this Forum. Hence for the reasons stated above, we hold that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum for the reliefs sought for by her and is liable to be dismissed in toto. In view of the facts and circumstances, if the complainant chooses to file a suit for the relief claimed in these proceedings, she can do so according to law and in such a case she can claim the benefit of Sec.14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the present proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, while computing the period of limitation prescribed for such a suit. Both the points are answered accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainant.
12.
“2. (1) (d) “consumer” means any person who,—
(i)
(ii)
Explanation.—For the purposes of 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 purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment”
xxx “(o) ‘Service’ means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.”
13. The Apex Court referred to the distinction between ‘contract of service and contract for service’ as under:
“There is a distinction between a ‘contract of service’ and a ‘contract for service’. A ‘contract for service’ implies a contract whereby one party undertakes to render service
14.
15.
16. `30,000/- which was paid by the appellant in pursuance of her entering a new contract with the respondents for the purpose of plying a new
17.
KMK*
