Judgment :- The opposite party in the original complaint before the Consumer Forum has come before this Court for issuance of Writ of prohibition prohibiting the first respondent, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai, from conducting the proceedings in C.C.No.236 of 2008. 2.The facts of the case, are as follows: The second respondent was alleged to have supplied the products (Pallet Bag- Product Code No.500871)to the petitioner herein, as per the purchase order placed by it. The said products were also delivered to the writ petitioner by the second respondent on 10.10.2008. 3.As per the Purchase Order, the writ petitioner herein was required to pay the money within thirty days from the date of the receipt of the materials. However, the petitioner did not pay the amount quoting that there are certain manufacturing defects in the respondent/ complainants products. As the money was not paid for the products delivered to the writ petitioner, the second respondent issued a notice on 19-11-2008, through his Advocate. 4.The said notice was replied by the writ petitioner on 26-11-2008, stating that there were defective pallet bags supplied by the second respondent. Therefore, the writ petitioner asked the second respondent to supply new pallet bags in hundred numbers towards replacement and on such replacement, the amount would be settled. Though the second respondent rushed to the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum by way of C.C.No.236 of 2008 alleging deficiency in service. 5.After the receipt of notice from the Consumer Forum, the writ petitioner has come before this court by way of filing this Writ of Prohibition. 6.Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent could not be a "consumer" and there was no service rendered by the second respondent to the petitioner. Therefore, the question of invoking jurisdiction of Consumer Forum does not arise and the petition for Writ of Prohibition has been filed. 7.The respondents were served and M/s. P.Muthupandi and P.Murugan filed vakalat on behalf of the second respondent on 24.06.2009, and their names appeared in the cause list when the case was posted on 16-04-2010. As there was no representation on behalf of the second respondent, the matter has been posted for "orders" today. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the second respondent. Hence the matter was passed over. When the matter was called again there is no representation. As there was no representation on behalf of the second respondent, the matter has been posted for "orders" today. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the second respondent. Hence the matter was passed over. When the matter was called again there is no representation. Hence, this Court proceeds to decide the matter on merits as per the record available. 8.It is seen from the papers that the second respondent supplied the Pallet Bags to the petitioner and for some defects in the quality supplied by the second respondent, the petitioner did not pay the amount. In this regard there was exchange of correspondence between the parties. 9.A perusal of complaint would reveal that in paragraph 4 of the complaint it is stated as follows: “The complainant submits that when the opposite party had taken delivery of the products supplied by the complainant in good conditions within his premises, the opposite party alone responsible for all the damages caused by him and his men. Theses acts of the opposite party clearly shows the deficiency of services on his part, which caused mental agony to the complainant.” The prayer sought for in the complaint is extracted as follows: “It is therefore prayed that this Honourable Forum may be pleased to pass orders in favour of the complainant (a)directing the opposite party to make the payment of Rs.46,800/- towards the bill raised by the complainant, dated 10-10-2008 and accepted by the opposite party with interest @ 18% p.a from 10-10-2008, till date of payment, (b)directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.4 Lakhs towards the compensation for the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and for the mental agony caused by him, (c)directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of this complaint and to pass such other further orders as this Honble Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.” 10.First of all, the second respondent is a "supplier" and the petitioner is a "purchaser" of the goods. A consumer alone is a competent to maintain the complaint before the Consumer Forum invoking the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. A consumer alone is a competent to maintain the complaint before the Consumer Forum invoking the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as follows: (d)”Consumer” means any person who,- (i)buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose ; or (ii)[hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]; Section 2(g) describes, what is meant by deficiency, which is extracted as follows: (g)”deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service; Section 2(o) describes, what is meant by service, which reads as follows: (o)”service” means service of any description which is made available to potential [users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of] facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, [housing construction] entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contact of personal service. 11.In this case, the second respondent is a supplier of the goods to the petitioner. 11.In this case, the second respondent is a supplier of the goods to the petitioner. Therefore, he would not fit into the definition under Section 2(d) of the Act and the act of supply of goods will not satisfy the ingredients of definition of services in Section 2(o). The second respondent has not described as to how he would come under the definition of consumer and as to how the writ petitioners act would amount the deficiency in service except some allegations in paragraph 4 of the complaint, which is extracted as follows: “The complainant submits that when the opposite party had taken delivery of the products supplied by the complainant in good conditions within his premises, the opposite party alone responsible for all the damages caused by him and his men. Theses acts of the opposite party clearly shows the deficiency of services on his part, which caused mental agony to the complainant.” 12.Out of the aforesaid transaction if anybody could maintain the consumer complaint, it is the writ petitioner who alone would be competent to maintain the consumer complaint if he is aggrieved with the quality of service rendered by the second respondent and not vice versa. The allegations made in the complaint do not make out any case for consumer complaint and it is to be frivolous one. 13.The only remedy, available to the second respondent is to file a suit for recovery of money for the goods supplied by him before competent civil Court. No doubt, Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act states that the remedy provided under this Act is not in derogation of the provisions of any other law. Section 3 of the Act is as follows: Section 3 : Act not in derogation of any other law.- The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force”. 14.However, the complainant has to make out the case for maintaining a consumer complaint. Therefore, as the second respondents complaint is not maintainable as the second respondent is neither a consumer nor a person to whom service is rendered by the petitioner. This Court finds that the second respondent is not a consumer and hence the second respondent is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. Therefore, as the second respondents complaint is not maintainable as the second respondent is neither a consumer nor a person to whom service is rendered by the petitioner. This Court finds that the second respondent is not a consumer and hence the second respondent is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. 15.Under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this Court is not awarding any costs. Section 26 of the Act reads as follows: Section 26-.Dismissal of frivolous or vexatious complaints.- Where a complaint instituted before the District Forum, the State Commission or, as the case may be, the National Commission is found to be frivolous or vexatious, it shall, for reasons to be recorded in writing, dismiss the complaint and make an order that the complainant shall pay to the opposite party such cost, not exceeding ten thousand rupees, as may be specified in the order. The complaint filed by the second respondent is found to be frivolous one. 16.In view of the above, this Writ of Prohibition is ordered and the first respondent/Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai-20, is prohibited from proceeding with the consumer complaint in C.C.No.236 of 2008. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.