D.O.F:25/05/2023                                                                                                          D.O.O:05/12/2024

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD

                                 CC.150/2023

Dated this, the 05^th day of December 2024

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                                          : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA. K.G                                            : MEMBER

Manoj Thomas,

Thomas Chorukkavil,

Chorukkavil House,

Atteganam . P.O, Belur village,

Vellarikund Taluk.                                                    : Complainant

(Adv: P. Padmanabhan)

                                                                        And

1. The Executive Engineer,

L.S.G.D Division,

Kannur.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer,

L.S.G.D Kannur.                                            : Opposite Parties

(Adv: Ashalatha.M OP 1&2)

ORDER

SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT

          The case of the complainant is that the complainant is a licensed P.W.D contractor.  He entered in to an agreement with Opposite party No:2 on 24/01/2019 for completing the project called Kannur DP Project No. 327/18-19 Infrastructural improvement RMSA –GHSS Kozhichal in Cherupuzha Grama Panchayth.  As per the agreement period for completion of the work was 8 months.  But opposite party has not taken initiative to start the work by demolition the old building in the work site.  The negligent attitude of the opposite parties caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.  For which complainant claims Rs. 5,70,000/- compensation.

          The opposite party No:1 and 2 appeared and filed written version.  Opposite party says that complainant is not a consumer and not maintainable before DCDRC.  Further states that opposite party is a self-Government Institution.  And they never give any service or offered service for consideration.  The opposite party admits that complainant is a licensed contractor and signed an agreement with opposite party for completing the work namely Kannur DP project No. 327/18-19 Infrastructural implements RMSA – GHSS Kozhichal in Cherupuzha GP.  The Opposite parties are the authorized officials and they were acting according to the directions to the departments and Opposite party has no liability to compensate the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complainant.

          In the meanwhile opposite parties filed IA 213/2023 to consider the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that complainant is not a consumer contemplated under Consumer Protection Act.  The Opposite Party has not rendered any service to complainant and they acted according to direction of the department.  The Respondent / complainant filed counter to the petition strongly opposing the petition.

          Heard the respective counsels in detail.  On the basis of pleadings and evidence on read the short question arised for consideration in this case is:

1. Whether complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the complainant is maintainable before DCDRC

Section 2/7 I II of Consumer Protection Act 2019 defines                    Consumer as here under:

1. buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or 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 service 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 service 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 service for any commercial purpose.

     From the above definitions it is clear that a person being a consumer only when he purchases any goods or avails service for considerations.

          In the particular case it is crystal clear that complainant has not availed service from opposite party for considerations.

          So we hold that complainant is not a consumer and complaint is not maintainable before consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.  Hence IA allowed and complaint is dismissed no order as to costs.

     Sd/-                                                                                          Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                     PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

Ps/                                                              Assistant Registrar