Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar, Hon’ble Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 22/11/2002 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai in consumer complaint No.585/1994 (352/1999).
2. The facts leading to this appeal can be summerised as under :-
The complainant-appellant has filed consumer complaint against the opponent-Housing Society alleging that opponent-Society has encouraged the strangers to sleep near the door of her flat and she was disturbed and troubled for the whole night and there was no watchman. She had to call Police for her help. She further alleged that she had to go through the torture, inconvenience because of opponent-Society. It is further alleged that the opponent-Society does not provide adequate security for safety of the complainant and the opponent-Society is biased against her. Therefore, complainant-appellant claimed damage of `4,90,000/- for inefficient and deficient service.
3. The opponent-Society has resisted the complaint contending that complaint is not maintainable. The opponent further alleged that complainant being a lawyer, unduly harassed, embarrassed the members of the Committee of the Society and dragged the Society for legal prosecutions. They further alleged that complainant-appellant is in default of payment of the Society dues and is in the habit of peaking up fights with the Committee Members and teach them lessons. They further alleged that no such incident as alleged by the complainant-appellant in the complaint occurred. They further contended that the Society has Watchman, Sweeper and all the necessary facilities are provided to the members without any discrimination. They further contended that complainant-appellant is in arrears of the maintenance charges. They therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum observed that the complainant-appellant has not submitted any evidence on affidavit regarding partial and biased treatment given to her by the Society and has dismissed the complaint awarding cost of `300/- to be paid to the opponent-Society.
5. This appeal was on a sine-die list of this Commission. The appeal was placed before us on 29/07/2011. We had directed the office to issue intimation to both the parties. Accordingly, intimation was issued. On the date of hearing, appellant-complainant remained absent. Opponent-respondent-Society appeared through their Advocate Ms.Debarati Nag and argued the case.
6. We have gone through the appeal papers along with appeal compilation. The appellant has not adduced the compilation of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. In the appeal memo, she has stated that earlier she had filed complaint Nos.385/1994 & 634/1994 which were allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum awarding cost of `5,000/- to be paid by the opponent-Society. Relying on this decision, she has filed complaint No.585/1994 (352/1999). She has not adduced any evidence in respect of deficiency in service on the part of opponent-Society. Observing that the complaint is not genuine and without any substance and the complaint was not even supported by proper evidence, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has dismissed the complaint. We also find that this is nothing but abuse of process of law. We agree with the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed with cost of `2,500/- payable by appellant to the respondent-Society.
2. The order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dated 22/11/2002 is hereby confirmed.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 27th September 2011.
