By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
1. The complainant filed petitions in SM 2503/2010, SM 2504/2010 and also SM 2559/2010 before the opposite party for obtaining “patta “for Mr. Abdul Kareem, K.K.Mohamed and Kunhippalan respectively. But the opposite party dragging the matter wilfully with the intention of harassing parties. The complainant approached opposite parties several times but there was no proper reply even not provided date of posting. The complainant alleges some other petitions submitted after the above referred complaints already disposed and the opposite parties questioning the dignity of the complainant due to the above circumstances. The complainant filed application under Information Act and there also the answer from the opposite party was not correct. Subsequently the complainant caused notice to the opposite party. But the answer was not proper. Hence the complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and claims compensation of Rs.75,000/-. The complainant submits that due to non-issuance of “patta” by the opposite party, the complainant is not getting due fee and the parties are in difficulty since they are not able to avail loan from financial intuitions. The complainant as well as the parties suffering from mental agony and difficulties. The prayer of the complainant is to allow Rs.75,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony suffered by the complainant and also compensation of RS.1,00,000/- towards the inconvenience and hardship caused to the complainant.
2. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and the opposite parties entered appearance and filed version stoutly opposing the complaint. The opposite party contended that there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and opposite party and the complaint is not maintainable against the Revenue department as per the decision of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The opposite party further submitted that two complaints in the matter was dropped due to non-submission of documents and the third one was considered and” patta” was also issued. The complainant herein approached the opposite party after more than 4 years enquiring the position of the case and the reply was given to the complainant properly. The complainant or his clients are permitted to approach the opposite party office and so the submission of the complainant that the opposite party is not providing information after expiry of 11 years is baseless. If the opposite party was not satisfied with the information furnished by the opposite party he could have approached the appeal authority. So the opposite party submitted that they are not liable for the loss of fee from the clients to the complainant and the attempt of the complainant is to trace the lost money from the opposite party employees which amounts improper and irregular. If the complainant is not satisfied with the order of opposite party there is provision to approach appellant authority. So, the attempt of the complainant is unfair and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3 Thereafter the complaint posted for the affidavit of the complainant and the complainant filed affidavit also. Opposite party represented and submitted that the complaint is not maintainable against them and so to be dismissed.
4. The commission perused complaint and affidavit of the complainant. It appears that the complainant is a lawyer who approached opposite party on behalf of his clients for obtaining “Patta”. But there was delay in considering the petitions of the complainant pending before the opposite party. He also alleges non issuance of proper reply to his enquiries. But the perusal of the averments in the affidavits shows that there is no element of consumer relationship between the complainant and opposite parties as provided in the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant cannot be treated as a consumer and the opposite party also cannot be treated as service provider as per the Consumer Protection Act. So we are not considering the other aspects in the complaint and affidavit. We hold that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission under the Consumer Protection Act and so we dismiss the complaint. The complainant is permitted to approach appropriate authority to redress the grievance, if there is merit in the complaint.
Dated this 20th day of December, 2022.
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
VPH
