KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL 148/2011
JUDGMENT DATED: 3..6..2011
PRESENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
Shajan.K.T.,
S/o Karukuttikaran Thomas, : APPELLANT
P.O.Thazhekkadu,Thrissur.
(By Adv.Unnikrishnan.V)
1.The State Transport Authority : RESPONDENTS
Thiruvananthapuram, rep.by
Secretary.
2. The Sub regional Transport Office,
Irinjalakuda.
3. The Regional Transport Authority,
Thrissur, rep.by Secretary.
4. State rep. by Secretary,
Transport, Thiruvananthapuram.
JUDGMENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The present appeal is preferred from the order dated 29th November 2010 of the CDRF, Thrissur in CC 163/07. The aforesaid complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 4 for their failure to issue vehicle permit in time and thereby the complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss. Thus, the complainant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.1500/- per day for a period of 69 days. The opposite parties entered appearance before the Forum below and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The 2nd respondent Sub Regional Transport Office, Irinjalakuda authorized the representative Sri.Santhosh Kumar.S.S., Head Accountant of that office to enter appearance. He filed a statement denying the alleged deficiency in service and requested for dismissal of the appeal.
2. Before the Forum below Exts. P1 to P5 and R1 to R6 documents were produced from the side of he parties to the complaint. On an appreciation of the facts, circumstances and evidence of the case, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 29.11.2010 dismissing the complaint by finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is against the said order the present appeal is preferred by the complainant therein.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and the authorized representative of the 2nd respondent. A perusal of the complaint in CC.163/07 would make it clear that complainant is not a consumer under the opposite parties 1 to 4. The complainant being the owner of 2 tourist vehicles applied for renewal of permit under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed there-under. Admittedly the opposite parties are functioning as statutory authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules framed there under. Even if there occurred any failure on the part of the opposite parties in renewing the vehicle permits, the aforesaid inaction or failure can not be treated as deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is nothing on record to show that the relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties was that of consumer and service providers. It is further to be noted that the complainant has not availed services of the opposite parties on consideration so as to bring the complainant within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Unfortunately, the Forum below failed to consider the aforesaid aspects as to whether the complainant is a consumer as defined under Section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is true that the opposite parties have also failed to take up such a contention. But this State Commissions is of the view that the complaint in CC.163/07 itself is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, the impugned order passed by the Forum below dismissing the complaint in CC.163/07 can be up held on the ground that the complaint in CC.163/07 is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In the result the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself by finding that the complaint in CC/163/07 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
ps
