LALLAN SINGH Vs. PWD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE called out. None responds for either of the two parties. The instant appeal being of the year 1994 is taken up for decision on merit.

(2.) THE appellant, who filed his complaint No. 86/93 before the District Consumer Forum, Ballia has filed this appeal and questioned the propriety of the impugned judgment of March 23, 1994 whereby his complaint as numbered above was dismissed. The ground on the basis of which his complaint had been turned down was that it was not a consumer dispute and as such the complaint was not cognizable by the District Consumer Forum. Indeed, the finding of the Forum below seems to be perfectly just and valid and it does not call for any interference.

(3.) IT may be recalled that the appellant/complainant is a PWD Contractor and as per the contract between the two, he had undertaken a contract of supplying stone blast measuring 210 cubic metres to the department of PWD. While discharging his part of the performance, he supplied the stone blast and delivered it at the relevant site on the side of the road but the authorities of the PWD neither measured it nor made payment of its price. It is borne out from these averments of the complainant that he himself was a supplier. In other words, he had agreed to render service to the PWD and though he supplied the stone blast yet his complaint being not based on a dispute of consumerism was not cognizable. The Consumer Protection Act is for the benefit of consumer who hires for consideration service from someone and if there is deficiency in the said service, a dispute arising therefrom is cognizable by a District Consumer Forum. The appellant did not hire any service from PWD; rather as mentioned above he himself was a service provider. Therefore, he had no cause of action. We are, therefore, of the decisive view that his complaint has been rightly dismissed.