LIEUTENANT COMMANDER OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, NAVAL DEPARTMENT vs G.Krishnan

THIS Revision Petition is by the opposite parties against an award passed by the District Forum.

THE case of the complainant is that the opposite parties had hired a Vessel of his for patrolling in the high seas. During the period of hire, the Vessel sunk. THE opposite parties had neither replaced the Vessel nor paid the value of the Vessel. According to the complainant this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. On these allegations, the complaint was filed. The opposite parties contended that the complaint was not maintainable because the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning given in the Consumer Protection Act.

The District Forum, on consideration of the evidence, held that the complainant is a consumer who can maintain the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. It also held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It then directed the opposite parties to return the Vessel or pay the value thereof to the complainant. It further directed them to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and also a sum of Rs. 500/- as costs.

NOW in the revision, the learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner-opposite parties submits that the order of the District Forum is not sustainable in law because clearly the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. In our view the learned Counsel is absolutely correct. It is the opposite parties who had hired the Vessel of the complainant and not vice-versa. If at all, it is only the opposite parties who were the consumers and not the complainant. Clearly therefore the complaint is not entertainable under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. In this view of the matter, we allow the Revision Petition, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. There will be no order as to costs. Revision petition allowed.