Facts in brief are that the petitioner struck an agreement of publicity with respondents for five years (1-10-07 to 31-12-12) for display of hoardings boards. The petitioner also allegedly paid an advance of Rs.1,40,000/- but the respondents backed out from agreement and proceeded to deal with some other company for display of same boards. Respondents also filed a civil suit for cancellation of impugned agreement which was dismissed on 17-3-10 and an appeal is pending against that judgment. Thus, the petitioner contends that the respondent did not offer him any valid / effective service thereby causing him loss of Rs.80,00,000/- on different counts. First, the petitioner demanded from respondents to compensate his loss and refund of earnest money but they did not respond positively nor they bothered to reply petitioner's legal notice. Hence, this petition for refund of earnest money of Rs.1,40,000/- and grant of damages of Rs.8,00,000.
2. Petition was contested by respondents on the objections, interalia that the consumer court is not competent to adjudicate parties' controversy nor the petition was filed within time.
3. Respondent's objections were opposed by the petitioner party. Argument heard and record perused.
4. Perusal of the contents of petition would show that neither the petitioner is respondent's consumer nor the latter is a service provider, as such, relationship of consumer and service provider is not made out between the parties. There is also no denying the fact that the petitioner reached an agreement with respondents for display of hoarding / boards while on the other hand, the respondents have denied the impugned agreement and have also challenged it before Civil Court. Respondent's objections to petitioner's claim being barred by time is also shared by the court as the petitioner did not file this claim in time. Admittedly, impugned agreement was struck on 1-10-07 but the present petition was filed on 22.4.10 with delay of more than 2 1/2 years. As regards issuance of legal notice dated 3-4-10 it was also not issued in time, therefore, non compliance of such notice cannot be availed by the petitioner to justify late filing of claim. Against this position, the respondents prayed for dismissal of petitioner's claim.
5. For what has been discussed above, the petition is returned for presentation to a court of competent jurisdiction as consumer court lacks necessary jurisdiction. After due completion, file be consigned to record room.