CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAIPUR
Gautam Chourdiya, President and
Pramod Kumar Varma, Member
Managing Director,
T.R.N. Energy Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
versus
Antim Rai – Respondent
Appeal No.FA/24/343
Decided on 27.11.2024
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 2(7)(ii) – ”Consumer” – Dispute involved is purely money recovery dispute – Respondent/complainant was service provider so far as work order in question are concerned & does not come in category of ‘Consumer’ – Complaint was not maintainable before District Commission – Forum erred in holding that complainant ‘Consumer’ & dispute as consumer dispute – Impugned order is set aside – Complaint of complainant is not maintainable before Consumer Commission – It will be open to respondent/complainant to approach appropriate Civil Court for redressal of her dispute.(Paras 6 and 9)
Result: Appeal allowed.
ORDER
Gautam Chourdiya, President.—This appeal is filed against order dated 31.01.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Korba (hereinafter called “District Commission” for short) in Complaint Case No.CC/2023/82 (No.RBT/CC/23/82 as mentioned in the impugned order) whereby the complaint was allowed and the opposite party / appellant herein was directed to pay the complainant / respondent balance amount of Rs.17,75,691/- (Seventeen Lacs Seventy Five Thousand Six Hundred Ninety One), compensation for mental and financial loss Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) and cost of litigation Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand). All the above amounts were directed to be paid within 45 days failing which interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of order till realization was also directed to be paid. Aggrieved the opposite party has challenged the impugned order by way of this appeal.
2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that the complainant/ respondent is involved in providing services like concreting, painting, false ceiling, tiles fitting, sheet fitting and aluminum door and windows fittings etc. As per case of the complainant/ respondent she obtained work orders of above works from the opposite party / appellant company in their project situated at Gharghora and executed some works in that site for which on different dates total bill of Rs.28,75,691/- was raised out which only payment of Rs.11,00,000/- has been made by the opposite party / appellant company. The complainant/ respondent made several requests for payment of remaining amount but the opposite party / appellant did not pay that amount. Advocate notice through registered notice was also sent on 22.06.2020 but even then the balance amount was not paid hence alleging unfair trade practice complaint was filed before the District Commission.
3. Before District Commission the opposite party / appellant failed to file their written version within the prescribed period under the Act, hence the written version filed by them was not taken on record by the District Commission.
4. Learned District Commission in the impugned order found the allegations leveled in the complaint partly proved and allowed the complaint accordingly with the direction as aforesaid in paragraph No.1.
5. Final arguments heard. Record perused. We have also gone through the written arguments submitted by both the learned counsels.
6. From perusal of record and considering the matter from all angles it appears that the dispute involved in this matter is purely money recovery dispute and in fact the respondent / complainant was service provider so far as the work order in question are concerned and does not come in the category of ‘consumer’, hence at the very outset the complaint was not maintainable before the District Commission. In our considered view learned District Commission has erred in holding the complainant ‘consumer’ and the dispute as consumer dispute. In this regard it is quite pertinent to reproduce the definition of ‘consumer’ as per Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 as under:—
“(7) “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 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 s
Money recovery dispute – Consumer complaint not maintainable – Remedy is to file civil suit.
(1) Livelihood – It was the bounden duty of the opposite parties to establish that the purpose was not for the livelihood of the complainant. (2) Profit generation – It has to be seen whether the dom....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.