VINODINI BAJPAI Vs. RAJYA KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant before us was the complainant before the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow. He was the successful tenderer in respect of the award of a contract by the Respondent Parishad for construction of a deep drain. He approached the State Commission with the grievance that the accounts in respect of the said construction contract had not been settled and amounts that would be due to him on a proper settlement of accounts have not been paid to him by the opposite party.

(2.) THE State Commission was of opinion that this was neither a case of sale of goods nor of hiring of a service as contemplated by the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act) and hence the complainant cannot be regarded as a 'consumer' falling within the scope of the definition of the said expression contained in Section 2(1) (d) (i) of the Act. The complaint was dismissed by the State Commission on the aforesaid ground. The correctness of the said order passed by State Commission is under challenge in this appeal.