National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): The Bench of Dr S.M. Kantikar (Presiding member) and Dinesh Singh (Member) dismissed the revision petition and asked the complainant to seek a remedy in a competent civil court as per the law.
In the present case, the dispute arose between O.P Thakur (Complainant) and Shimla Municipal Corporation (OP-1) and H.S. Kochar & MS Kochar, Landlords (OP-2). The dispute is in respect to “deficiency in service” as alleged by the complainant.
In the first instance after the filing the complaint, district forum held that, the present complaint cannot be decided summarily before the district forum.
Thereafter, State Commission remanded the complaint back to the district forum while directing that district forum will dispose of the complaint afresh. In adjudication afresh, the district forum reiterated its stand as was in the first instance and ordered the complaint to be returned for being presented before the competent civil court.
Again the State Commission vide its order directed that “complainant is relegated to civil court for adjudication of his dispute.”
Thus in view of the above, complainant filed the instant revision petition before the Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the State Commission’s Order.
Advocate, Sameer Thakur argued on behalf of the complainant revisionist and argued that the case is remanded to the district forum for adjudication on merit apropos deficiency in service against the municipal corporation alone.
Adding to his above argument, he stated that, the complaint is such as can be adjudicated on merit in summary proceedings in consumer protection fora established under the Act 1986. Further, he stated that, fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India are being violated by the municipal corporation’s deliberate/wilful negligence.
The public drainage system above the complainant’s office premises has been neglected by the Corporation. The rainwater flow from Mall Road diverted and gets logged in front of the passage to complainant’s office premises and even enters inside the office room. Despite the odds, the complainant used to mitigate the loss/damage to his professional property to the maximum extent at his own expense.
The situation as stated above went unmanageable after the monsoons of 2011 and 2012. The complainant approached the Corporation Commissioner but was ignored and no action was taken for any of his complaints. Thereafter he filed an RTI application to seek appropriate redressal still no action was taken.
Complainant in the above situation had to exhaust his lifetime earning for the survival of his family.
Corporation’s deliberate /wilful negligence is violative of complainant’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.
Analysis and Decision of the Commission
Commission while noting some observations stated that,
Consumer Protection fora do not enforce fundamental rights, they do not exercise jurisdiction of High Courts or Supreme Court under Articles 226 or 32.
The present complaint filed for ‘deficiency of service’ under the Act 1986 is not meant or intended to be in the nature of public interest litigation apropos a public authority.
Commission examined 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.
Commission held that, the instant case can be aptly adjudicated on merit in summary proceedings by quasi judicial consumer protection fora established under Act 1986.
Further, it also stated that the revision petition is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to seek a remedy in a competent civil court as per law. Nothing stops the complainant from seeking remedy under Article 226 or Article 32 in High Court or Supreme Court to enforce any of his fundamental rights including “Art 14 & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution” mentioned in his complaint.
In view of the above terms, the present revision petition stands dismissed. [O.P. Thakur v. Shimla Municipal Corpn., Revision Petition No. 1600 of 2019, decided on 15-10-2019]