IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 30th day of November, 2015
Filed on 04.08.2014
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.197/2014
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. James Francis 1. Sri. Shiju Viswanadhan (Driver)
Pazhambasseril House Panickasseril, Vadackal Ward
Alappuzha North – 688 007 Thiruvambady P.O.
Alappuzha – 688 002
2. Sri. Dharmarajan (Driver)
Veliyil Veedu, Railway Station
Ward, Alappuzha
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-
The complainant entrusted his Tata Indigo car to the first opposite party for running Tourist Package Trips and according to the complainant the amount paid by the first opposite is lesser than what was agreed orally. This complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for getting the balance amount along with compensation and cost.
2. Notice was served to the opposite parties, first opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. Notice against the second opposite party returned as unclaimed. Hence second opposite party was set ex-parte.
3. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant does not come under the purview of the consumer. Further the complaint is filed for settlement of account. Therefore the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Considering the allegations of the complainant and contentions of the first opposite party, the Forum has raised the following points arose for consideration:-
1) Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2) If so whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs prayed for?
5. The case of the complainant is that he entrusted his vehicle to the first opposite party for running Tourist Package Trips. According to the complainant, the amount paid by the opposite party is lesser than what was agreed orally. The complaint is filed for getting balance amount along with compensation and costs. In the instant case the relationship between the complainant and the opposite party was not that of a consumer and service provider. Here the complainant entrusted his vehicle to the first opposite party for running Package Trips and the opposite party has to pay the rent of the car @ Rs.1500/- per day. The complaint is filed for getting the balance amount. See 2(1) (d)(i) and (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 runs as follows:-
“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 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
(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 does not come under the definition of a consumer.
Therefore the complainant is not a consumer. Consequently the present complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is therefore dismissed.
In the result the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of November, 2015.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Appendix:- Nil
//True Copy//
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F
Typed by :- Pr/-
Compared by :-
