S.K.ABDUL vs IRA GHOSH

THE case of the complainant/appellant is that he is a mason and he was engaged by the Managing Committee and the Headmaster of Entally Academy to carry out the through repairs, renovation and construction, addition and alteration, painting and decoration including all wood works for repairing the table, chair etc. in the year 1989-90. It was also alleged that after completion of the work the, appellant, submitted his bill for Rs. 91,787/- , but he was paid Rs. 82,300/- by the respondents leaving a balance thereby of Rs, 9,487/- . It is also allegation of the appellant that after lapses of about 3 years the respondents are trying to deduct Rs. 17,457/- from his bill in unjust manner.

THE case of the respondents is that the dispute of the appellant does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and it is not maintainable before the Forum. It was further alleged by the respondents that there was no resolution in the Managing Committee of the Entally Academy for engaging the com-'' plainant/appellant as a contractor for repairing and construction work of the institution in the year 1989-90 and no letter of appointment was issued to the appellant. It is contended that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were elected on 15.2.91 as President and Secretary of the School respectively and took the charge on the same day and at that time the outgoing Secretary of the said school was absent and the outgoing Secretary of the school did not submit any audit report of income and expenditure of the said school from 2.4.86 to 24.1.91. THE Ex-President, Ex-Secretary and some members resigned on 24.1.91. It is alleged that the Ex-President and Ex-Secretary were wholly responsible for the payment of the alleged bill of the Appellant as the work of repairing were done in the year 1988-89. It was also contended that newly elected committee was informed in a meeting held on 2.9.89 that the sum of Rs. 40,000/- was allotted as budget of the repairing work and the Ex-President and Ex-Secretary spent more than the budget amount and for payment of such excess amount no resolution was passed by the Managing Committee for excess expenditure. It was alleged that the Ex-President and Ex-Secretary issued cheque without taking signature of the Official Headmaster and the Cheques were issued in the Summer Vacation. It is alleged that the Appellant submitted a bill, for Rs. 70,000/- without date and affixing any seal of his firm. It is also contended that the Ex-President and Ex-Secretary did not pass any opinion on the bill regarding the satisfaction of the work done by the appellant. It is also alleged that the appellant did not submit any voucher for the purchase of materials. It was contended that thirty of bill could not be considered any public institution where public money was involved. From the documents and records it appears that there was mismanagement and mis-appreciation of the public money. It was further contended that the meeting of the new Managing Committee held on 2.5.91 unanimously resolved to set up Enquiry Committee consisting of 5 members to investigate the matter and the new Managing Committee also preferred for an audit of the accounts by Panel Official for such negligence and defalcation of fund caused by the previous Managing Committee. The Respondent contended that the petition of complaint not being maintainable before the Consumer Redressal Forum the appeal is also not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. JUDGMENT

Previously, on 17.2.93 a non speaking order was passed by this Commission directing the respondents to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Appellant and the respondents being aggrieved prefer a writ application under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India before the Hon''ble High Court whereby the Hon''ble High Court disposed of the said writ application directing this Commission to pass a speaking order in this regard.

ACCORDINGLY the case is taken up for hearing on merits and going through the facts and circumstances of the case. We observed that the petition of complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Redressal Forum, because it involved many complicated question of facts which could not be decided in a summary procedure followed by the Consumer Redressal Forum, other than Civil Court. Further, there is charge of fraud and defalcation against the previous Managing Committee to which the complainant/appellant was involved; so the decision of the respondents to set up a High Power Committee for investigation into the matter and also the auditing of the accounts by the Penal Officials in relation to the expenditure incurred by the previous Management are the questions in the case and the same could not be adjudicated by the Consumer Redressal Forum, except Civil Court, specially in view where there are some elements of fraud and defalcation have been alleged by the respondents. Moreover, the complainant/appellant is not the hirer of service from the respondents against the payment of consideration on the other hand he is the hirer in respect to his service to the respondents. The Consumer Redressal Forum can only adjudicate the complaints of hirer of service or purchaser of good for consideration, so the elements of filing the complaint does not exist or fulfilled by the instant case and as such it is not maintainable before the Consumer Redressal Forum. Hence, the earlier order dated 17.2.93 passed by this Commission is recalled, the appeal is dismissed on contest and order dated 12.11.92 of the learned C.D.F. in C.D.F. Case No. 3476/91 is affirmed hereby. There will be no order as to the cost. Appeal dismissed.