Orissa

Rayagada

CC/1/2014

Ramanjulu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Tahasildar, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Y.Madhu Sndhan Rao,

31 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 01/ 2014.                                 Date.    11    .1. 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                   President

Sri Gadadhara  Sahu, .                             Member.

Smt.  Padmalaya  Mishra,                          Member

Sri Ramanjulu  Himirika, S/O: Rameya Himirika, AT: Rabadi, Po:Bankili, PS:Chandili,    Dist.Rayagada,State:  Odisha.                                                                        …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Tahasildar, At/Po: Kolnara, Po/ Dist: Rayagada.

.                                                                                                           .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps  :- Sri Y.Madhu Sudhan Rao, A.G.P, Rayagada.

                                J u d g e m e n t.

        The  present disputes emerges out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps with a prayer to restrain the O.Ps  for not to proceed against the complainant U/S- 4 & 6 of the O.P.L.E. Act,1972 (Odisha Act 6 of 1972 and further  to grant Patta in favour of the complainant  pertaining to  the  land  situated at Mouza Rabadi vide Khata No. 3, plot No. 20 to an extent  of Ac.3.00 cents.

 

          On being noticed the  O.Ps  appeared through their learned  A.G.P and  contended that  the averments made in the  petition are  all false, and O.Ps  deny   each and every allegation made in the petition. The O.Ps taking other grounds in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The O.P is a statutary authority under O.P.L.E. Act  and the subject matter of the  dispute is ambit under the purview of  O.P.L.E. Act.   Hence the O.ps prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

          The O.Ps appeared and filed their written version.  Heard arguments from the  learned counsel for  the  complainant  and O.Ps.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

The  parties   advanced arguments vehemently opposed the complaint touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                         FINDINGS.

          On the oust now  the issues  are  to be decided by this forum prior to delve in to conclusion

          1.Whether this forum  has   jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under the C.P. Act, 1986  ?

          2.Whether the complainant is a consumer as defined U/S- 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 ?

While answering  the issue  we would like to refer the citations.  It is held and reported  in CPR-2011(4) page No. 482   the  Hon’ble  National commission,  where in observed  “Conumer forum  can not adjudicate  disputes without  addressing to the basic issues”.  In  another citation  reported in CPJ 2010(1) page No. 136 where in the Hon’ble  State Commission, New Delhi  observed  “Forum should decide the dispute of jurisdiction  first, application kept open to be decided later”

At this stage, it is appropriate to quote Section  2(1)(d) of C.P. Act,  which reads as follows:-

            “(d)”Consumer” means any person who-

1. 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 resale or for any commercial purpose; or
2. Hires or avails of 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 or avails  of 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 the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose”.

 

Admittedly, in the case at hand, the complainant has not availed any service nor purchased any goods from the O.P. for any consideration, as such, he cannot be a ‘consumer’ under them. Only because the Consumer Protection Act is a social benefit oriented Act, it cannot besaid that any body who files a case before the District Forum,as the case may be he can bea ‘consumer’.

                       

On perusal of the  complaint petition this  forum observed  that the matters relating stop to proceedig against the complainant   U/S- 4 & 6 of the O.P.L.E. Act is beyond the  jurisdiction of this forum and further  to grant Patta in favour of the complainant  pertaining to  the  land  situated at Mouza Rabadi vide Khata No. 3, plot No. 20 to an extent  of Ac.3.00 cent. will not come under the purview of the C.P. Act, 1986.  Where there is a special remedy is available to the parties under the O.P.L.E Act provided by the legislature  the forum did not inclined to invoke its jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter(Supra).  Hence  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 in any mananer.

Further this forum observed that   the prayer  for  settlement of land and restraining the O.P from proceeding U/S- 4 & 6 of the O.P.L.E Act against  the complaint is bad under the law and  which amounts to abuse of the process U/S-16 of the  O.P.L.E. Act, even the  Civil courts  are barred to adjucdiate  the matter of settlement  of land under  O.P.L.E. Act as such this case is  not maintainable  before this forum.

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  for   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 complaint petition is hereby  dismissed. 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.

            It is held and reported  in SCC 1995(3) page No. 583  the Hon’ble Supreme Court   in the case of Laxmi Engineering works Vrs. P.S.G.Industrial Institute where in observed   “The time spent before consumer forum shall be set-off  by  the  authority, where the proceedings are taken up, as per provision of Section-14 of Limitation Act.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this           11 ^th.   Day of   January,  2018.

 

                Member.                                             Member.                                                             President