ORAL
A/1139/2019
Sobaran Singh and others V/s Uppar Civil Judge and others
27-09-2019
ORDER
This is an appeal filed before this State Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 18-09-2019 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kanpur Dehat in Misc. Case No. 24 of 2019 whereby District Consumer Forum has dismissed complaint holding that the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
I have heard appellant and perused above impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum. Appellant/complainant has filed complaint against respondents/opposite parties for redressal of grievance arising out of order passed by respondent No.01 in civil suit. Appellant/complainant has prayed following reliefs in complaint.
''यह कि परिवादीगण निम्नलिखित उपसम की याचना करता है:-
- यह कि सिविल न्यायालय द्वारा दस्तावेजो का सम्यक रूप से संस्थित न करने की चूक व गफलतवाजी से परिवादीगणो को ७० हजार का हर्जाखर्चा व ४ लाख की क्षतिपूर्ति विपक्षीगणो से दिलायी जाये।
- यह कि परिवाद खर्च ३० हजार व अन्य उपसम जो माननीय न्यायालय उचित हो विपक्षीगण से परिवादीगणो को दिलाया जाये।
प्रार्थना
श्रीमान जी से निवेदन है कि परिवादीगणो को सिविल न्यायालय ने वादपत्र संस्थित न करने की चूक व गफलतवाजी की गैर विधिक कार्यवाही मे हाजिर अदालत कराया है जिसमे परिवादीगणो की हुई या हो रही क्षति मय ब्याज विपक्षीगणो से दिलाने की कृपा करे।''
In view of averments made in complaint and reliefs prayed in complaint dispute raised in complaint is not a consumer dispute and complainant is not a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Power conferred on court for administration of justice is not a service defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
:2:
Appellant has referred judgment of Hon’ble National Commission dated 05-03-2007 rendered in the case of The Joint Sub-Registrar V/s TMT Maragatham wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held as follows:-
“From the ratio, as discussed in the aforesaid two cases it is apparent that if the statutory authority is discharging sovereign function as stated in the S.P. Goel’s case then the concerned officer cannot be proceeded under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. But, if the officer is rendering statutory service on the basis of rules and regulations by charging fee he would be liable to be proceeded against under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, because complainant avails of services by paying statutory fees.”
In view of above District Consumer Forum has rightly held that the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Appeal is dismissed at admission stage without issuing notice to respondents.
President
Pnt.
Court-1
