NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2584/2010

SHYAM SUNDER BHARGAVA & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

COMMISSIONER, GHMC - Opp.Party(s)

MR. K. MARUTHI RAO & MRS. K. RADHA

20 Aug 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2584 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 09/04/2010 in Appeal No. 2301/2009 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. SHYAM SUNDER BHARGAVA & ANR.R/o. Flat No. A-203, R.K.S. Apts, 3-6-286, HydergudaHyderabadAndhra Pradesh2. SMT. UMA RANI BHARGAVA, W/O. SHYAM SUNDER BHARGAVAR/o. Flat No. A-203, R.K.S. Apts, 3-6-286, HydergudaHyderabadAndhra Pradesh ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. COMMISSIONER, GHMCCircle IX, AbidsHyderabadAndhra Pradesh ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 20 Aug 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Heard counsel for the petitioner. The District Forum had ordered payment of Rs.19,34,730/- towards market value of demolished flat for road widening. Besides that 12% interest, Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and costs of Rs.2000/- were also awarded. The OPs were proceeded exparte. The said order of the District Forum was challenged by the opposite party with delay of 412 days which delay was condoned by the State Commission vide impugned order which is subject matter of challenge in this revision and the appeal was ordered to be registered. We have asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to satisfy us as to how the petitioners/complainants would be consumer within the meaning of section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not justify filing of complaint before District Forum. In this case, flat purchased by the complainants was affected in the road widening scheme. The compensation for acquisition was not paid. Instead of seeking compensation though the court dealing with land acquisition cases, the petitioners/complainants chose to file a complaint before the District Forum. The petitioners/complainants in these sets of facts cannot be considered as a consumer so as to maintain a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. The remedy of the petitioners/complainants was elsewhere and the complainant have misutilised the consumer forum by filing a complaints in order to get their grievances redressed. In view of above, the complaint filed by the present petitioners is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint is hereby dismissed and the proceedings before the Fora below are ordered to be closed. The revision is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to State Commission and District Forum by the Registry.


......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................VINEETA RAIMEMBER