State of uttar Pradesh vs DHARAMPAL

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.4.1992 passed by District Consumer Forum, Lakhimpur Kheri in Complaint Case No. 53/91.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant took a contract from the opposite party, Superintendent Engineer for laying down the Kharanja on an area of 3300 square metres. An agreement was entered into between them on 18.6.1989. THE complainant to get a sum of Rs. 1,20,450/- on completion of the contract. THE complainant completed the work and requested for payment of the amount but the same was not paid and only a sum of Rs. 57,213.76 was paid. In the written version the opposite party has alleged that the complainant was to get a sum of Rs. 1,20,450/- after the completion of the entire work but the complainant did not complete the entire work. He only completed the laying of brick soiling in an area of 1561.40 square metres. The complainant was informed about this fact.

The parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. The learned District Forum, after considering the case of the parties came to the conclusion that the complainant is to be paid the entire amount and directed for payment of Rs. 63,236.25 within a period of one month. If the amount is not paid within 30 days then the interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be payable.

AGGRIEVED against this order, the appellant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by learned District Consumer Forum. The learned Counsel for the opposite party was heard. Sri Puttan Lai, Sr. Clerk of the appellant was present and he sought the adjournment. As the case was old one as such the adjournment was refused. In the grounds of appeal the appellant has alleged that the complainant is not a consumer. In the present case, we find that the complainant had taken a contract for laying of Kharanja in a road for 3300 sq. mtrs. The work was given by the Superintendent Engineer. In the present case the services of the complainant were taken by the Superintendent Engineer and not by the complainant. Section 2(d)(i) of Consumer Protection Act defines the consumer. A person is a consumer who hires or avails of any services for consideration. In the present case the service of the complainant was hired by the Superintendent Engineer for laying down the brick soiling, therefore, the complainant is not a consumer within the terms of this definition. It was the Superintendent Engineer who had hired the services of the consumer. Therefore, in view of the definition of the consumer in the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant is not a coasumer and could not have filed the complaint before the District Forum. Thus the appeal is liable to be allowed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the learned District Forum are set aside and the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal allowed.