IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Present:

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President

Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member 

C C No. 150/2016

Friday, the 30^th day of December, 2016

Petitioner                                  :         M/s. Bioflames Enterprises,

                                                          Rep. by the Managing Partner,

                                                          P.S. Vijayan, Kakkodi,

                                                          Kozhikkode – 673 611.   

                                                          (Adv. Ajithan Namboothiri)

                                                                   Vs.                                          

Opposite Parties                       :         M/s. Hotel Vani,

                                                          Rep. by the Managing Partner,

                                                          Changanacherry,

                                                          Kottayam – 688 101.

                                                          (Adv. Anitha R. and Adv. S. Damukumar)

                                                          O  R  D  E  R

Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President

          The case of the complainant filed on 06/05/2013 is as follows.

          The complainant is engaged in the business of designing, consultancy and installation of sewage treatment plant having operation in various parts of the State of Kerala.  The opposite party entrusted and given a work order for installation of sewage treatment plant at the respondent’s premises as per work order dated 10/05/2014 and the complainant had undertook the work for an amount of Rs.5,95,000/-.  As per the said work order the complainant had completed the work as specified in time.  But the opposite party was not interested and willing to give the balance amount and also for giving final connection for the plant.  According to the complainant, the Government of Kerala had taken a view against the respondent in the matter of giving Bar license and hence the opposite party is purposefully delaying to give the balance amount.  On several times the complainant demanded to complete the transaction, but there was no response from the part of the opposite party and the said negligent act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint.

          Opposite party filed version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable and it is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties because the other partners of the firm is not made as a party in this complaint.  According to the opposite party, the complainant has failed to complete the work as per the specification in the work order dated 10/05/2014.  The major portion of the work is still pending and the opposite party approached the complainant in several times to complete the work.  But he has not cared to complete the work.  According to the opposite party, after completing the work as per the work order he is ready to give the balance amount of Rs.1,16,000/- to the complainant and opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Points for considerations are

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
3. Relief and cost?

Evidence in this case consist of the proof affidavit of both sides and Ext.A1 to A4 documents.

Point No.1

          The case of the complainant is that the opposite party has not pay the balance amount of the sewage treatment plant which was installed in the premises of the opposite party Hotel as per the work order given by them.

          Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act defines –“ ‘consumer’ means any person who -

          (i) 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 pair or promised or partly paid or 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

          (ii) 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 payments 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”.

          Here the complainant has not case that he had purchased any goods or he availed any service from the opposite party for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised.  So in our view, as per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party.  Point No.1 is found accordingly.

Point No.2 and 3

          In view of the finding in Point No.1 complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.  No cost is ordered.

          Pronounced in the Open Fora on this the 30^th day of December, 2016.

          Hon’ble Mr. Bose Augustine, President                       Sd/-

          Hon’ble Mrs. Renu P. Gopalan, Member                    Sd/-

Appendix

Documents of petitioner

Ext.A1  :  Work order dtd.10/05/2014

Ext.A2  :  Notice dtd.29/04/2015

Ext.A3  :  Postal receipt dtd.29/04/2015

Ext.A4  :  Reply notice dtd.07/05/2015

Documents of opposite party

Nil

                                                                                                By Order

                                                                             Senior Superintendent