Hon’ble Mr. Dinesh Singh, Member 1. We heard the learned counsel for the complainant revisionist at length, and perused the entire material on record. 2. The dispute is between one O.P. Thakur (complainant), a lawyer by profession, on the one side, and Shimla Municipal Corporation (opposite party no. 1) and M/s H.S. Kochar & MS Kochar, Landlords (opposite party no. 2), on the other side. It principally relates to deficiency in service alleged by the complainant against the municipal corporation and the landlords. 3. The chronological adjudication in the two fora below is as follows: [a] The District Forum vide its Order dated 08.03.2016 had held that “we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint cannot be decided summarily before this Forum. The complainant can have appropriate remedy in appropriate court of law, if so desired.” [b] In appeal, the State Commission vide its Order dated 17.08.2017 had remanded the complaint back to the District Forum, directing that the “District Forum will dispose of complaint afresh strictly in accordance with law and proved facts.” [c] In adjudication afresh, the District Forum vide its Order dated 13.12.2017 had held that “the present complaint cannot be decided summarily before this Forum. Accordingly, this complaint is ordered to be returned to the complainant for being presented before the competent civil Court.” [d] In appeal, the State Commission vide its Order dated 10.06.2019 had directed that: “complainant is relegated to civil court for adjudication of his dispute.” 4. The complainant has filed the instant revision petition before this Commission under section 21 (b) of the Act 1986 against the said Order dated 10.06.2019 of the State Commission. 5. The complainant revisionist, in his memo of petition, has inter alia stated that: “The dispute with landlords OP-2 / Respondents was settled during the pendency of the complaint. No relief against them survives. They are impleaded as proforma party only.” 6. Mr. Sameer Thakur, advocate, learned counsel for the complainant revisionist argued that the case be remanded to the District Forum for adjudication on merit apropos deficiency in service against the municipal corporation alone, and not against the landlords. He further argued that the complaint is such as can be adjudicated on merit in summary proceedings in consumer protection fora established under the Act 1986. He furthermore argued that his fundamental rights under Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution are being violated by the municipal corporation’s deliberate / wilful negligence. 7. We may first observe that a complaint, as defined under section 2(1)(c) of the Act 1986, is not meant or intended for enforcement of fundamental rights including under “Art 14 & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution”. To state the obvious, consumer protection fora do not enforce fundamental rights, they do not exercise the jurisdiction of Hon’ble High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 226 or Article 32. 8. We may also observe that a complaint filed for ‘deficiency in service’ under the Act 1986 is not meant or intended to be in the nature of a public interest litigation apropos a public authority (the municipal corporation in this case). 9. We also note that no steps have been taken by the complainant to institute class action under section 12(1)(c) of the Act 1986. 10. The incongruity and irrationality in invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission under section 21(b) of the Act for remanding the case for adjudication to the District Forum while, now, confining and restricting his allegations and relief sought to the municipal corporation alone is self-evident on the face of it. 11. We are, but, first examining whether or not the specificities of the case are such as can be adjudicated on merit in summary proceedings in quasi judicial consumer protection fora established under the Act 1986. 12. For ready appreciation of the specificities of the case, we may refer to the following extracts from the complaint: 3. That despite specific demands & protests of the complainant the respondents have been continuously averse & deliberately negligent in discharging their aforesaid statutory obligations with malafide intentions whereby unpardonable deficiency in service has occurred to the complainant. Relevant facts are stated hereinafter in seriatim: Facts: A: Landlord’s negligence: (1) - - - (2) After acquiring exclusive ownership of the new complex the landlords stopped / neglected the general / usual maintenance / care of the complex although they have appointed a part-time Estate Manager whose job is only to collect annual rent in advance from various tenants located in the complex. Resultantly, the drainage system & the passage in front of and around the complainant’s office premises remains totally blocked & the rain water gutters / down pipes from the roof are non existent / defective, there being no course for water discharge. Thereby, frequent rain water logging around & seepage inside has become the permanent problem to the complainant causing substantial damage to his profession & property. The Estate Manager was requested repeatedly at spot to ameliorate the situation, but he always expressed his inability for want of funds form the landlords. So much so, no Safaidar, even part-time, is engaged for the entire complex & no annual maintenance / repair is ever conducted by the landlords although the complainant is now being charged the enhanced rent of Rs. 2,396/- pa (inclusive of taxes) & that too in advance atonce for the whole year, punctually in 1st week of April every year despite the legal bar of S 7 of the HP Urban Rent Control Act. The last rent receipt Annex C2 is filed in proof of tenancy. B. Corporation’s negligence: (3) Simultaneously, the public drainage system on the Mall Road above the complainant’s office premises is also being neglected by the Corporation. Thereby, the rain water flow from the Mall Road has diverted its route down to the Willow Bank Estate complex & gets logged in front of the passage to complainant’s office premises & even enters inside the office room. Breaches / holes also appeared in the Road above hillside roof of the office room causing constant seepage & percolation of water down below to the office room inside. (4) Despite all the above odds the complainant used to mitigate loss/damage to his professional property to the maximum extent at his own expense. But the situation went unmanageable for him during & after the monsoon of 2011. A due Complaint-cum-Notice was served upon the Corporation on 19-09-2011 vide Annex C3. (5) The Corporation ignored complainant’s above Complaint-cum-Notice. No effective action was taken thereupon till the next monsoon season of the year 2012. Next year’s monsoon rainfall occurred in 1st week of July, 2012. The water flood / percolation & seepage aggravated. About two feet water flow went inside the office. It destroyed about 50% of wooden racks / shelves, furniture, flooring, electric / telephone wiring, about 5% books & record, computer / printer & flooring. (6) During the ongoing havoc, the complainant personally approached the Corporation Commissioner right on 04-07-2012 to inspect / get inspected the spot position & to protect the complainant. The complainant also showed the duly served Complaint-cum-Notice to the Commissioner and protested the negligence of inaction. The Commissioner (then MP Sood) misbehaved with the complainant and turned him out. (7) Immediately after, the complainant filed an RTI application on 06-07-2012 with a view to proceed further to seeking appropriate redressal. Therein the complainant also brought the misconduct of the Commissioner on the record of the Corporation. No action was taken even then. The matter was further taken up by the complainant upto HP State Information Commission by way of complaint & appeal under the RTI Act. The complaint was disposed of on 03-04-2013 on an assurance given on behalf of Corporation that the Corporation shall try to redress the grievance of the complainant amicably by / before 07-05-2013. The appeal is still pending. The RTI application & the decision of the Information Commission are filed in proof as Annex C3A & C3B respectively. Further, in answer to another RTI application the Corporation did reply to the complainant on 07-03-2013 wherein it was conceded without reservation that because of want of drainage there has been water logging inside & outside the complainant’s office. That communication is also filed in proof as Annex C3C. (8) Loss / damage caused: All said & done, complainant’s professional functioning @25% for 1 ½ year was grossly disturbed form August 2011 onward. He had to exhaust his life time earnings for keeping alive his profession and family of six members – self, wife, widowed daughter-in-law & three dependent law / LLB studying grandsons. During this period the complainant had to spend for the maintenance repair / reconstruction of the damaged office premises at roof outside & inside. After having done all this the position of undrained water logging problem in front of office still exists which calls for further expense for amelioration of the continued, deliberate & willful inaction / negligence of the opposite party. (9) Corporation’s deliberate / willful negligence is violative of complainant’s fundamental rights under Art 14 & 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. Self speaking photographs proof at site is filed in seriatim: - - - Remedy of Consumer Protection Act: 4.(1) - - - (4) The complainant is ready & willing to face oral cross examination, if any by the opposite party & to answer any further query from the hon’ble forum. Any spot inspection or the appointment of a local commission at the cost / instance of the opposite party shall be respectfully welcomed. - - - Prayer: It is respectfully prayed that an appropriate order / direction u/s 14 of the Consumer Protection Act be kindly issued against the opposite party jointly / severally & in favour of the complainant to the following effect: 1. Award compensation for the loss / injury suffered by the complainant due to negligence of the opposite party as described in para 3 (13) ibid: Rs. 2,75,836 2. Grant exemplary / punitive damages as described in Para 4(1) ibid: Rs 25,000 3. To remove recurring deficiencies in service in question as described in paras 2, 3A (2) & 3B (8) & 9 ibid: Mandate 4. Adequate cost of complaint: Rs. 25,000 _______________ Total : Rs. 3,25,836 Rupees three lakh, twenty five thousand eight hundred & thirty six (+) Mandate. (extracts from the complaint) (emphasis supplied by us) 13. Noting the entire material on record, and the specificities of the averments and allegations inherent therein, in our considered view, this case, for apt adjudication on merit, to do justice to the case, requires recording of extensive oral evidence and proving extensive documentary evidence as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and adherence to the substantive and procedural provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, that is best undertaken in a civil court. In other words, we do not find the case, as discernible from the entire material on record, and from the specificities of the averments and allegations inherent therein, to be such as can be aptly adjudicated on merit in summary proceedings by quasi judicial consumer protection fora established under the Act 1986. 14. In the light of the brief discussion made above, the revision petition is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to seek remedy in a competent civil court as per the law. It goes without saying that the right of the complainant to agitate his case before any competent authority remain unaffected. But consumer protection fora established under the Act 1986, to provide additional remedy to consumers, are not for him. It also goes without saying that the complainant, if he chooses to bring action in a civil court, is free to file an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and, in such contingency, the chronological proceedings in the consumer protection fora would be material and relevant towards making such application. And, nothing stops the complainant from seeking remedy under Article 226 or Article 32 in Hon’ble High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court to enforce any of his fundamental rights including “Art 14 & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution” mentioned in his complaint. 15. We make it explicit that we have consciously refrained from critiquing the allegation of ‘deficiency in service’ since the right of the complainant to seek remedy in a competent civil court or to agitate his case before any competent authority survives. 16. Let a copy each of this Order be sent by the Registry to the District Forum, to the municipal corporation (opposite party no. 1) and to the landlords (opposite party no. 2) within seven days of its pronouncement. | 
