The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Mysore, and the maintainability of the relief sought under the Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President—The reliefs sought for by the petitioner in prayer Nos. 1, 2, and 4 contained in the petition do not fall within the ambit of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act and hence cannot be granted. In regard to the only other remaining prayer-No. 3. — a serious objection has been raised by the Opposite Party that the said relief cannot be claimed against the Opposite Party — Municipal Corporation — under the provisions of the said Act. We are not however, called upon to express any opinion on this question since the pecuniary valuation of the subject-matter of said prayer is such that the matter falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Mysore. The petitioner is not, therefore, entitled to pursue his claim for the grant of the said relief also before this Commission. The petition has thus to fail on the aforesaid grounds.

2. However, we would while dismissing the petition record the assurance given to this Commission by Shri S.S. Javeli, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the City Municipal Corporation, Mysore (Opposite Party), with his usual fairness, that the Municipal Corporation would make every possible endeavour to set right such of the grievances put forward in the complaint-petition as may be found by the City Municipal Corporation to be well founded and that they would initiate action in this regard within a period not exceeding six months from today and complete the same, as far as possible within a period not exceeding one year. It is necessary to state in this context that most of the allegations contained in the counter-petition have been controverted in the counter-statement filed on behalf of the City Municipal Corporation and relying on this Mr. Javeli submitted before us that the Corporation was not admitting the correctness of the allegations contained in the original petition.

3. It will be open to the petitioner to file a concise representation before the Commissioner, City Municipal Corporation, Mysore within a period of six weeks from today setting out particulars of the defects or shortcomings which according to him require to be rectified; such representation, if filed within the time aforesaid fixed will also be taken into consideration by the City Municipal Corporation in the matter of determining the steps to be taken by it in implementation of the assurance given to this Commission.

4. We reserve freedom to the petitioner to move the District Forum, Mysore, if he so chooses, in respect of the claim covered by prayer No. 3 in the original petition but we make it clear that we express no opinion whatsoever on the question of maintainability of the said prayer as against the Opposite Party under the provisions of the Act and the said matter is left to be determined by the District Forum in accordance with law, if and when the question is raised before it.

Subject to the above observations, this petition will stand dismissed. No costs.

Petition dismissed.

–