Back
ORISSA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CUTTACK
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C. Mohapatra, President;
Mr. R.N. Panigrahi & Mrs. J. Patnaik, Members
TRINATH SAHU & OTHERS—Complainants
versus
STATE OF ORISSA—Opp. Party
C.D. Case Nos. 88, 89 & 94 of 1992—Decided on 28.4.1993
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant : None.
For the Opp. Party : Mr. D.K. Mishra, Addl. S.C.
The amount paid as licence fee for the exclusive privilege granted does not constitute a service rendered on hire, and therefore, the complainants are not considered consumers.
Headnote:
Deficiency in Service - Country Liquor Shops - Granting licence to vend country liquor is not a service rendered by opposite parties on hire. Complainants are not consumers and complaints are dismissed as not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
Complainants, vendors of country liquor shops, claimed grievance to the opposite parties about inconvenience for bootlegging. No action was taken by the opposite parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that granting licence to vend country liquor at a specified area is not a service rendered by opposite parties on hire. Complainants are not consumers, and therefore, the complaints are dismissed as not maintainable.
Issues: Deficiency in service, maintainability of complaints
Ratio Decidendi: Complainants are not consumers as the amount paid as licence fee is for the exclusive privilege granted, not for a service rendered on hire.
Final Decision: Complaints are dismissed as not maintainable.
Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, President—Deficiency in service is grievance of complainants in all these three complaints.
2. Complainants are vendors of country liquor shops. They have claimed that they made grievance to the opposite parties about their inconvenience for bootlegging. But, no action was taken by the opposite parties.
3. Granting licence to vend country liquor at specified area is not service rendered by opposite parties on hire. Amount paid as licence fee is for the exclusive privilege granted. Accordingly complainants are not consumers.
4. Since complainants are not consumers, the complaints are maintainable since consumers, voluntary organisations, State Government or Central Government on their behalf can only file complaint before Redressal Agencies.
5. In result, complaints are dismissed as not maintainable.
Complaint dismissed.
____
