National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sandeep Parganiha vs Manoj Kumar Tikariha on 15 September, 2005
Equivalent citations: II(2006)CPJ140(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent, complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.
2. Very briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent, complainant entered into an agreement with the petitioner for flooring purpose of his complex at Raipur, for a consideration of Rs. 62,475. According to him the flooring work done for the complainant was only for Rs. 31,805. The quality of the material used was not up to standard and he also did not complete the work, for which he had. to spend money to complete the work from another contractor. It is in these circumstances, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund Rs. 30,195 along with interest (c)12% p.a., from the date of complaint till the date of payment along with cost of Rs. 1,000. An appeal against this order, tiled by the petitioner before the State Commission, was also dismissed, hence this revision petition.
3. Despite notice, none appeared for the petitioner but we go on to pass the order based on the material on record. There are two ma in grounds advanced before us for admitting the revision petition -- one that the work to be executed by the petitioner in favour of the complainant was of commercial nature, hence outside the purview of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986; and secondly, the order of the District Forum, which was ex parta, could not be sustained in view of the plea taken by the petitioner before the State Commission that no notice was served on him.
4. We have very carefully gone through the material on record and find that as far as the plea taken by the petitioner that the stones which were to be fixed related to a commercial complex, hence outside the purview of CPA, is not maintainable. What alleged by the complainant is deficiency in service, under Section 2(i)(d)(n) of the Consumer Protection Act, which does not oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court, where 'Service' like this is rendered vis-a-vis in a commercial complex Fixation of stone in any commercial complex does not make it a 'service' hired for commercial purposes. It was not to earn profit or make money but only to improve the image of the shop/complex. We see no merit in this contention, hence rejected. Coming to the second point, even if we agree with the petitioner that no opportunity was given to him to defend his case before the District Forum, but nothing prevented him from advancing his defence before the State Commission. The State Commission rightly considered this plea and held that the appeal would amount to be barred by limitation for the simple reason that the order of the District Forum was passed on 17.2.2001, which was received, by the petitioner on 24.8.2001 but the first effort to find out the effects regarding registered letters emanated from the District Forum order was made on 31.12.2003. What was the petitioner doing for over two years and 4 months, remained unexplained. It is on these grounds that the appeal was dismissed by the State Commission. We are in full agreement with the way the State Commission has dealt with the pleas raised by the petitioner before State Commission and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner before them. We see no infirmity in the order calling for our interference.
5. Revision Petition is devoid of merit, hence dismissed.