NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4616/2009

SATYA NARAYAN NAIK - Complainant(s)

Versus

VEDANTA ALUMINUM LTD. & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. PRATAP SAHANI

06 Jan 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 4616 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 09/09/2009 in Appeal No. 36/2009 of the State Commission Orissa)
1. SATYA NARAYAN NAIKR/o Old Cinema Road, Sundergarh, P.O. Rangadhipa, P.S. TownSundargarh ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. VEDANTA ALUMINUM LTD. & ORS.R/o Bhurkamunda, P.O./P.S./Distt. JharsugudaJharsuguda2. MR. TAMMYA MUKHARJEE DEALING WITH THE LEASING OF BUILDING & LODGER/o Bhurkamunda, P.O./P.S./Distt. JharsugudaJharsuguda3. THE CHAIRMAN VENDATA ALUMIUM LTD.R/o Bhurkamunda, P.O./P.S./Distt. JharsugudaJharsuguda4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, VENDATA ALUMINUM LTD.R/o Bhurkamunda, P.O./P.S./Distt. JharsugudaJharsuguda ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 06 Jan 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Factual matrix are that 9 rooms of lodge of petitioner were let out to respondents on lease on certain terms and conditions. Respondent while paying rent deducted TDS @ 15% despite protest made by the petitioner and also that respondent left lodge before expiry of lease period without issuance of notice. A complaint eventually came to be filed by petitioner before District Forum seeking certain reliefs. District Forum having admitted complaint, directed issuance of notice against respondents. Aggrieved respondents took matter to the State Commission challenging order of District Forum admitting, complaint filed by petitioner. State Commission having analysed basic issue about relation of petitioner and respondent, came to conclusion that petitioner was service provider qua the respondent and he could not have grievance for redressal before consumer fora. Having considered submission made at bar and upon due consideration of the finding recorded by State Commission, we are of the view that no error has crept in the order of State Commission. Accordingly revision petition is dismissed, with no order as to cost.