BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM (DISTRICT FORUM) NORTH TRIPURA : KAILASHAHAR C A S E NO. C. C. 17/01 SMT. AMITA DUTTA W/O of Late Gobinda Dutta Village: Jalai, P.O Sonamukhi PS : Kailashahar, Unakoti District COMPLAINANT V E R S U S 1. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Dharmanagar Division, PO & PS : Dharmanagar, Pin – 799250, Dist North Tripura
2. The Inspector of Post Officer, Kailashahar Sub-division, P.O & PS : Kailashahar, Pin – 799277, Dist. Unakoti OPPOSITE PARTIES
P R E S E N T SHRI A.K.NATH PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM UNAKOTI DISTRICT::KAILASHAHAR A N D SMTI. S. DEB, MEMBER SHRI KISHORE KUMAR GHOSH, MEMBER C O U N S E L For the complainant : Shri R. Sinha, Advocate For the OPs : Heard ex- parte ORIGINAL DATE OF INSTITUTION :10-01-2017 JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON :10-01-2018 J U D G M E N T This is a complaint preferred by the complainant Smt. Amita Dutta U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties for realizing the amount of rent and electric bill etc. 2. The facts leading to the lodging of this complaint are that the OP No.2 for their Sub-post office at Sonamukhi took a room premises of the father-in-law of the complainant on monthly rent basis @ Rs.1,400/- (Rupees one thousand four hundred only). Thereafter, on the death of the father-in-law the complainant being the legal heir became entitled to receive the monthly rent and accordingly, she received the rent up to the month of November, 2015, but thereafter, the OPs closed their office room by locking without any information to the complainant and kept the key of the room with their hand till date, for which the complainant could not be able to use the room or get any response from the OPs regarding the payment of the rent of the room and in this process from December, 2015 to October, 2016, i.e. for 11 months the rent of the room is due to be paid by the OPs, including the electric bill for the month of November and December. Under that circumstance on 31/05/2016 the complainant served advocate notice to the OPs claiming payment of all dues. Thereafter, the OP No.1 sent a letter to the complainant requesting her to settle the matter without litigation and also requested her to submit her claim in details and accordingly, the complainant submitted her claim to the OP No.1 in details on 03/08/2016, but thereafter no response was made from the side of the OPs regarding payment of the rent etc. It is further contended in the complaint that due to such acts of the OPs the complainant has been suffering mental and economical loss and she has sustained a loss amounting to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only), which includes rent from December, 2015 to October, 2016 Rs.15,400/- (Rupees fifteen thousand four hundred only) and electric bill for November, 2015 amounting to Rs.450/- (Rupees four hundred fifty only) and for December, 2015 amounting to Rs.550/- (Rupees five hundred fifty only). This apart, the complainant has also claimed Rs.3,600/- (Rupees three thousand six hundred only) as mental agony. The complainant has filed the instant complaint for getting redress to the tune of the claim, as made above.
3. Notice was issued to the OPs. From the documents available with the record it is found that both the OPs have received the notice duly and several dates have been allowed for the appearance of the Opposite Parties, but ultimately none of the OPs appeared and contested the suit and as such, Vide Order dated 24/05/2017 the case has been proceeding ex-parte against the opposite parties. 4. The complainant submitted her examination-in-chief on affidavit in which he replicates the same version as put in the complaint petition. Another witness, namely, Sri Biswajit Sinha has also been examined as PW 2 on behalf of the complainant. 5. In this case the only point for determination is as follows:- Whether the complaint preferred by the complainant is maintainable in this Forum?
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION 6. In this case the complainant has approached before this Forum for redress. Her case is that she being the landlady has been deprived of the rent from the opposite parties. She has presented her case under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. ; Section 2 (1)(d) defines the expression “Consumer” thus:- “(d) consumer means a person who, 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 re sale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) hires any services 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 beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires 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 first mentioned person. In order to satisfy the requirements of clause (i), there must have been a transaction of buying of goods for consideration or ii hiring of any services for a consideration paid or promised. The claimant is not a buyer or purchaser and as such, she cannot be termed as consumer. From the view point of hiring also she cannot be said to be a hirer of any service from the OPs. She only let out her room to them for their office. She is the landlady and they are the tenants. As such, from no angel the complainant can be said to be a consumer within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The issue is decided accordingly. ORDER 7. In the result, the complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merit being not maintainable in law and consequently it stands dismissed. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation and other amounts as claimed from the OPs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach any other forum for getting appropriate redress. 8. The case stands disposed of. 9. Furnish copy of this judgment to the complainant. Communicate copy of this judgment to the O.P. No.1 by post. ANNOUNCED (A.K. NATH) PRESIDENT (KISHORE KR. GHOSH) (S. DEB) MEMBER MEMBER | 
