Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President;
S. Kulwant Singh, Member
C.P. ARYA—Appellant
versus
VIJAY KUMAR, PARCEL SUPERVISOR,
NORTHERN RAILWAY—Respondent
F.A. No. 157 of 1993—Decided on 11.6.1993
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : In person.
For the Respondent: In person.
The court established that allegations of civil or criminal wrong, such as intentional insult, humiliations, manhandling, and defamation, were not triable within the consumer jurisdiction, and the appellant did not meet the definition of a 'consumer' as per the Act.
Headnote:
Consumer - Railway Services - The court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the allegations of intentional insult, humiliations, manhandling, and defamation made by the complainant may constitute civil or criminal offenses but were not matters for adjudication within the consumer jurisdiction. The appellant could not be treated as a 'consumer' and the complaint was dismissed at the very threshold.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant appealed against the dismissal of the complaint by the District Forum, Karnal, alleging mistreatment by the respondent Vijay Kumar, the Parcel Supervisor at the Railway Station, Karnal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations of intentional insult, humiliations, manhandling, and defamation may constitute civil or criminal offenses but were not matters for adjudication within the consumer jurisdiction. The appellant could not be treated as a 'consumer' and the complaint was dismissed at the very threshold.
Issues: The issues revolved around the complainant's mistreatment by the respondent at the Railway Station, Karnal, and whether the appellant could be considered a 'consumer' under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations of intentional insult, humiliations, manhandling, and defamation, while potentially constituting civil or criminal offenses, were not within the purview of the consumer jurisdiction. The appellant did not meet the definition of a 'consumer' as laid down under the Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court refrained from burdening the consumer-appellant with any costs.
Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President—The un-successful complainant-appeals against the order of the District Forum, Karnal dismissing the complaint on the threshold ground of its lack of maintainability.
2. The somewhat tenous case of the complainant was that he had gone to the Railway Station, Karnal to book a parcel of examination material. It was the suggestion that the respondent Vijay Kumar who was the Parcel Supervisor paid little heed to his claim for priority of booking the said material and instead was somewhat not very civil to the Complainant. After a complaint was made to the superior officer, the parcel was ultimately accepted but apparently some exchange of hot words followed.
3. The District Forum took a view that the allegations of intentional insult, humiliations, man handling and defamation made by the complainant may constitute civil or criminal offences but were not matters for adjudication within the consumer jurisdiction. It was held that the appellant could not be treated as a ‘consumer’ and the complaint, was, therefore, dismissed at the very threshold.
4. Prof. C.P. Arya, appellant who projected the appeal with great erudition was never the less somewhat off the mark. This was patendly so that because he seemed to be unaware of the basics of the consumer jurisdiction and the threshold requirements for invoking the same. It was contended that the respondent had made complaints against him to the Principal of Dyal Singh College, Karnal and sent a copy to the Vice Chancellor Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra which had lowered him in the eyes of his peers and hereby defamed him.
5. The submission has obviously to be noticed and rejected. It is somewhat elementary that the Civil or Criminal wrong of defamation is not one which is triable in the Consumer Commission. It is otherwise plain on the record that the respondent ultimately accepted the parcel and there is not the least hint of deficiency in Railway service for transporting or forwarding the same to the addressee. Consequently if is somewhat manifest that the District Forum was eminently right in taking the view that the appellant did not come within the ambit of the definition of ‘consumer’ as laid-down under the Act. We are unable to find any merit in the present appeal which is consequently dismissed. However, we refrain to burden the consumer-appellant with any costs.
Appeal dismissed.
