AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 24th day of December, 1997 in O.P. No. 6/1997 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Villupuram.
THE appellant is the complainant while the respondents are the opposite parties. Short facts may be related in order to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration in this action.
The complainant, it appears, was appointed as an apprentice by order dated 14.3.1983 in Civil Supplies Department and posted to Arur Village, Kallakurichi Taluk. Whilst he was in service as an apprentice, he was, however, terminated from service. While he joined the service, it appears, he had submitted SSLC Certificate Book, Community Certificate and other relevant documents. After his termination from service, he was making representation for the return of the documents from the opposite parties, the documents were, however, not returned for so many years. Ultimately the documents, it is said, were returned after a delay of 14 years.
IN such a backdrop and setting, the complainant knocked at the doors of the Forum below alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and claiming certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint. The opposite parties in pith and substance would contend that the dispute as raised by the complainant can never be construed as a consumer dispute. What is further stated is that the complainant cannot at all be stated to have availed of the services of the opposite parties for consideration and, therefore, it is the question of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties will never arise for consideration. The complaint as such is liable to be dismissed.
THE Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, recorded a finding that the complainant cannot at all be construed as a consumer on the facts and in the circumstances of the case inasmuch as he has not engaged or availed of the services of the opposite parties for consideration. It is on the basis of such a finding, the complaint has been dismissed by the Forum below without costs. Aggrieved by the order as above, the complainant resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of his choice namely, learned Counsel M/s. A. Arulmozhi and N. Jayabharathy. On service of process, the respondents/opposite parties also entered appearance through a Counsel of their choice namely, learned Counsel M/s. R. Ponusamy, S. Parthasarathy and A. Magesh Sheela.
WE heard the arguments of learned Counsel M/s. R. Kavinilavu representing learned Counsel M/s. A. Arulmozhi and N. Jayabharathy appearing for the appellant/complainant and learned Counsel Mr. S. Parthasarathy appearing for the respondents/opposite parties.
EVEN at the outset we may point out that there are absolutely no merits in this appeal. The order of the Forum below in recording a finding that the complainant cannot at all be construed as a consumer on the facts and in the circumstances of the case cannot at all be found fault with when especially there is no materials on record to point out that the complainant had really engaged the services of the opposite parties for consideration. Such being the case, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. In fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal dismissed.