Before the Honorable
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj.
(Super Market Complex, Block – 1, 1st Floor.)
Consumer Complaint No - 54/2010.
Date of filing - 12.10.2010.
Date of final order - 03.03.2011.
Present
i) Sri Saurish Chakraborty Honorable President.
ii) Smt.Swapna Kar Honorable Member.
Sri Swarup Chanda,
Son of Sri Bhuban Kanti Chanda,
Village and Post Office – Rupahar,
P. S. – Raiganj,Dist. – Uttar Dinajpur. Complainant.
VERSUS
1) Sri Subhash Bera,
Managing Director,
Owelkin Telecom Infra Private Limited,
76/1, Gholaghata Road, 2nd Floor,
VIP Road (Near VIP Tower), Kolkata: 700 048.
2) Sri Harenjit Singh,
Managing Director,
Narwla Infra Private Limited,
20, BT Road, Kolkata: 700 002. Opposite Parties.
F I N A L O R D E R
Number – 07.
Date – 03.03.2011.
Complainant Mr. Swarup Chanda on 12.10.2010 by filing a petition Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has prayed for an award of the bonafide dues amounting to `4,70,338/- (rupees four lakhs seventy thousand three hundred and thirty eight only) along with interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum since it became dues to till payment on the principal amount together with compensation of `20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only), litigation cost of `5,000/- (rupees five thousand only). And any other relief or relieves as the Forum deems fit and proper in favour of the petitioner and against the opposite parties.
The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant is a sub-vendor under the company/ opposite party number 1 and 2 and he also worked as sub-vendor since 2005 to 2009 under the company of opposite parties. As per worked order complainant has worked for installation of mobile tower for different companies and incurred huge amount as per direction of opposite parties and finished the work in due time. After completed all works complainant has handed over the said tower to the opposite parties and submitted three numbers of bills against his work. Company paid a few amount out of the total amount of the bills and sum of `4,70,338/- (rupees four lakhs seventy thousand three hundred and thirty eight only) remain unpaid till filing the suit. Thereafter, on several times petitioner has given so many reminders to pay the balance amount to the opposite parties but in vain. Lastly, petitioner sends a legal notice but opposite parties did not comply the request of the Lawyer’s letter. Therefore, not getting any other alternative to get relief from the opposite parties, complainant filed his case before this Honorable Forum.
On perusal of the record, it has been revealed that one Ld. Lawyer by filing a time petition appeared in this case on behalf of opposite party number 2 without any VOKALOTNAMA on 30.11.2010 after notice served upon opposite party number 2. But when the case was taken up on 30.11.2010 no body was present on behalf of opposite party number 2. It also found from the record that after a long period, A/D of the notice upon the opposite party number 1 has not returned. Even, no body is coming, thereafter to challenge the written version of the complainant. So, the case is heard ex-parte against the opposite parties.
To establish the case, complainant field lot of documents along with an affidavit sworn by him.
Decisions with reasons
Giving due consideration to the contents of the petition of complaint, documentary evidence of record and ex-parte hearing advanced by the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant, the Ld. Forum has come to the findings as follows-
Documents filed by the complainant shows that the complainant is a sub-vendor of the opposite parties’ company and has worked under the vendor/company of opposite parties. But the main solving question arise here is that in this case whether the complainant is actually ‘consumer’ or not as per provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The definition of the ‘consumer’ provided by the Sec. 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which shows 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 and 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 or 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;]
But in this case complainant did not hire any service nor did he buy any goods from the opposite parties. So, the complainant can not claim himself as a consumer.
Not only that the dispute in between the complainant and the opposite parties relates to the contract, which has actually remedies in Civil Court. Matters in dispute is entirely a commercial transaction, business relation between two parties and this Forum can not interfere with it.
So, considering all the above points this Forum concludes that this is not an appropriate Forum to solve the above dispute between the parties.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence, it is ordered,
That the case, CC-54/2010 is dismissed.
No order as to cost is passed.
Furnish the true photocopies of this Final order to the complainant free of cost and send same copy to the opposite parties through registered post with acknowledgement due card.
Sd/-…..…..……………… Sd/-…..….……………………
Swapna Kar Saurish Chakraborty
Member, President,
D. C. D. R. F., D. C. D. R. F.,
Uttar Dinajpur, Raiganj. Uttar Dinajpur, Raiganj.