DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 14/03/2022
CC/44/2022
K. Kousalya
D/o. K. Kandhasamy,
Door No.532, Opp. Govt. Hospital,
Agali, Attappadi.
(By Adv.Anwar Sadath & Fabid Ahmer) - Complainant
Vs
1.The Revenue Divisional Officer
Ottappalam.
2.The Tahsildhar
Agali, Agali Post, Attappadi, Kerala
3.The Village Officer
Agali, Agali Post, Attappadi, KeralaHg 13/04/2022
4.The Circle Inspector
Attappady, Keralag 13/04/2022
5.The Station House Officer,
Attappadi Police Station, Attappadi, Kerala
6. Arun Gandhi
S/o. Subramaniam, Arun Gandhi Niwas,
Agali, Agali Post, Attappadi, Kerala
7. Vanaja
W/o. Ramalingam, Door No.32,
Thamannan Chetty Road,
Veera Boyan Colny, Salem, Tamilnadu. - Opposite parties
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Gist of the ratio in Chief Executive (Works), The Hoogli Mills Co.Ltd., V/s Sri.Sachin Kundu (FA No.231/2010) on the file of the SCDRC, West Bengal and Sri.Rakesh K Dhawan V/s. Union of India & Ors. (CC/110/2006) on the file of the State Commission, Delhi are to the effect that since moneys in the exchequer are public money, the complainants are entitled to file complaint before a Consumer Commission in their capacity of a consumer of the services availed from Municipal and o ther Govt. Authorities. The first decision stated above stretches to the extent of making an obiter dicta to the effect that even delay in filing an FIR can also be dealt with by a Consumer Commission constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. Legality or illegality of the aforesaid findings apart, this complaint is filed based on the aforesaid ratio decidenti in the two decisions cited above.
- Complaint pleadings are to the effect that the complainant, while carrying out the works of a multi storied building in her property, was prevented by OPs 1 to 3 at the instigation of opposite parties 6 & 7. Even after there being clear orders and directive from the Chief Minister’s office, Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and the Women’s Commission, the 4th & 5th opposite parties failed to protect the interests of the complainant. The complainant suffered immense financial losses due to destruction of construction materials by way of exposure to elements. The complainant filed this complaint seeking around Rs.14,00,000/- by way of compensation and for incidental reliefs.
- A reading of the complaint makes it abundantly clear that grievance of the complainant is with regard to the stop memo issued by the third opposite party pursuant to an order passed by the first opposite party, allegedly at the instance of the individual opposite parties herein. We have perused the complaint as well as the documents submitted by the complainant.
- There is nothing whatsoever in the memorandum of complaint or documents that would make the complainant a consumer of the opposite parties. Opposite parties 1 to 5 had been carrying out their official functions without availing any sort of consideration. The dispute is, at the most, a civil dispute between two consanguine sisters, namely the complainant and the 7th opposite party (as revealed from the documents submitted) herein over properties that devolved upon them post demise of their father.
- This Commission has no locus standi to decide and adjudicate upon this lis in the facts and circumstances elucidated. We dismiss the complaint in limine.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of March, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V.
President
Sd/-
Vidya A.
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
