Tribunals and Commissions

HARISH CHANDRA MOHAPATRA vs Larsen and Toubro Ltd.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 1 February 1996 · Citation: 1996 2 CPJ 499 : 1996 3 CPR 446

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.C.Misra , Biswanath Rath , Mrinalini Padhi J.
RESULT
Appeal dismissed
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

1 paragraphs · 342 words
1.

THIS appeal arises out of the judgment passed by the District Consumer Forum, Sundergarh in C.D.. Case No. 11 of 1993. The complainant-appellant filed the aforesaid case before the District Forum claiming a sum of Rs. 95,951.20 paise alleging that a sum of Rs. 72,051.20 (Rs. seventy-two thousand fifty one and twenty paise) is outstanding against the opposite party on account of the transactions made with them. The complainant has set up a printing press of which he is the proprietor. The opposite party places orders from time to time and for the work done bills were submitted by the complainant to the Opposite party but the opposite party failed to make payment of the dues of the complainant which is the grievance made in the complaint petition. Besides the outstanding dues the complainant has claimed interest and damages to make up the total demand as mentioned earlier. A show cause was filed by the opposite party denying their liability and challenged the merit of the case before the District Consumer Forum. The District Forum, after considering the case of both the parties, came to a conclusion that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the C.P. Act on his own showing in the complaint petition. From the very nature of the transaction as indicated in the complaint petition, it appears that the dues of the complainant as claimed against the opposite party, was on account of the work done by him as per orders placed by the opposite party. In paragraph 10 of the complaint petition, it has been specifically mentioned that the opposite party is the consumer and not the complainant. In that view of the matter the dispute presented for adjudication before the District Forum is not a consumer dispute as defined in the Act and was therefore not entertainable. We are, therefore, of the view that a correct view has been taken by the District Forum in dismissing the application as not maintainable. THIS appeal is devoid of any merit and hence dismissed. Appeal dismissed.