10.04.2022

Sh. RAJESH, MEMBER.

1. Present complaint has been filed by complaints seeking a direction to the opposite party to refund fee paid to OP amounting to Rs. 10,000/- with interest, cost and compensation on account of failure to correct layout plan.
2. It is stated that complainant is living at House No. WZ 848 Rishi Nagar Shakur Basti Delhi 110034 since 1960. It is stated that the structure of the house deteriorated being 57 years old. In order to reconstruct the said house the complainant contacted an architect who informed the complainant that house number of complainant was being wrongly shown on the website of the OP. The complainant applied to OP for correction of his house Number from 849 to 848 by submitting requisite documents and fee amounting to Rs. 10,000/- by way of demand draft in favour of OP.
3. The OP rejected the application of the complainant vide letter No. TP/G/6096 dated 18.05.2017 stating that in layout plan the House No. 848 was being shown as 849. Further that the plot is subdivided in the year 1968. It was opined by the OP that OP has no mandate to change the property number and this is to be seen by Bldg. Department. It was advised that complainant shall get the ownership documents rectified from the Revenue Department and apply for Bldg plan sanction accordingly.
4. It is stated that OP has incurred mistake by not correcting their records pertaining to lay out plan therefore liable for deficiency in services. Hence the present complaint  seeking a direction to the opposite party to refund fee paid to OP amounting to Rs. 10,000/- with interest, cost and compensation on account of failure to correct layout plan
5. Notice was issued to Opposite Parties who appeared and filed their detailed Joint Written Statement denying allegations made in the complaint and seeking dismissal of the present complaint.
6. It is stated that the present dispute does not fall within the meaning of Consumer therefore the present complaint is liable to be rejected on this ground.
7. It is stated that in view of Section 347B of DMC Act 1957 any person aggrieved by any of the orders of the DMC shall prefer an appeal against such order before the Appellate Tribunal MCD, Delhi and hence the present complaint is not maintainable. 
8. It is further stated that the present dispute is civil nature therefore only the Civil Court or MCD Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the present suit and hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.
9. It is stated that complaint filed by the complainant against OP is without cause of action no cause of action ever arose to file the present complaint and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. On merits all the allegations are denied and contents of preliminary objections are reiterated. It is reiterated that present complaint does not pertain to a consumer dispute hence same is liable to be rejected.
11. Both parties have led their respective evidence by way of affidavit and also filed brief synopsis of their written arguments.
12. We have perused the record available before us and arguments of parties were heard and judgment was reserved.
13. The main issue which arises for consideration in the present complaint is whether there is any consumer dispute in the present complaint within the definition of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
14. As per the averments made in the present complaint and record available before us, the complainant submitted thatOP has incurred mistake by not correcting their records pertaining to lay out plan therefore is liable for deficiency in services. Hence the present complaint 
15. Perusalof the letter No. TP/G/6096 dated 18.05.2017issued by OP stating that in layout plan the House No. 848 was being shown as 849 in their record and the plot is subdivided in the year 1968 does not give rise to a consumer dispute. The opinion given by the OP that OP has no mandate to change the property number and this is to be seen by Bldg. Departmentdoes not give rise to a consumer dispute. It was advised by the OP that complainant shall get the ownership documents rectified from the Revenue Department and apply for Bldg plan sanction accordinglydoes not give rise to a consumer dispute.   
16. It appears that complaint is aggrieved by the letter No. TP/G/6096 dated 18.05.2017issued by OP stating that in layout plan the House No. 848 was being shown as 849 in their record and OP accordingly rejected the application of the complaint. Complainant has challenged the same before this Commission by way of present consumer complaint which is more or less an appeal against the order dated 18.05.2017 vide letter No. TP/G/6096.  Certainly the appropriate remedy lies under MCD Act and not under Consumer Protection Act. The nature of dispute between the parties is squarely covered under MCD Act and is not a Consumer Dispute. No question of deficiency in services arises despite the fact that complainant paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as processing fee with his application. The payment of fees by complainant to OP is not consideration for purchasing goods or availing services of Commercial nature. The request to OP a statutory body by complainant seeking amendment / rectification / correction in the record is not availing of services as defined under consumer protection act, 1986 but statutory functions of the state.  The correction of record pertaining to lay out plan being statutory function of the State / MCD is not akin to providing of services of commercial nature falling under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
17. In the present complaint the complainant has failed to establish any cause of action against OP which may give rise to a consumer dispute within the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

18. In view of above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that since the complainant failed to prima facie establish that there is a consumer dispute in the present complaint, therefore, present complaint is dismissed.
19. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry.

Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Commission on10.04.2022.

SANJAY KUMAR                NIPUR  CHANDNA                      RAJESH

PRESIDENT                            MEMBER                                  MEMBER