RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President; Mr. Damodar Thanvi, Member
RADHEY SHYAM SODANI—Complainant
versus
RAJASTHAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD. & ORS.—Opp. Parties
Complaint Case No. 48 of 1991—Decided on 17.8.93

The State Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act where the allegations made by the complainant do not constitute deficiency in service or negligence in the performance of services, the complainant has already availed the remedy of writ petition and the dismissal of the writ petition was based on the ground that the complainant may pursue his remedy in a Civil Court, and the questions involved in the complaint are complicated and complex and cannot be conveniently determined in a summary enquiry under the Consumer Protection Act.

Headnote:

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SERVICES - DEFICIENCY - JURISDICTION - CIVIL COURT - SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS - MAINTAINABILITY OF COMPLAINT - [SEC. 2(1)(C), 2(1)(G), 12, 14(1), 17(A)(1)]

Fact of the Case:

The complainant, a film producer, booked the entire village complex known as Khelgaon Jheel Tourist Village, Jamwa Ramgarh, Jaipur, for the shooting of his film. The permission was granted by the Managing Director of the Rajasthan Tourism. The shooting commenced on 6.11.1987 and Rs. 30,000/- were deposited with the Manager of the Tourist Village. On 29.11.1987, the Manager sent his armed guards who physically stopped the artists and technicians from completing their work. They also forcibly seized cameras, exposed and unexposed films, Nagra lights and light reflectors, light materials, trucks and other vehicles valued about Rs. 50 lacs and further locked the gates of the village complex, thus restricting the movement of the complainant’s film unit. The complainant was informed and he contacted the Manager and the Chairman and Managing Director of the Rajasthan Tourism. He was asked to deposit Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- as advance, which he did. However, the Manager did not permit him to continue shooting of the film and wasted his 2-3 hours. The complainant filed a writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court, which was dismissed. A Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed.

Finding of the Court:

The State Commission held that the complaint was not maintainable before the Consumer Forum as the allegations made by the complainant did not constitute deficiency in service or negligence in the performance of services. The Commission further held that the questions involved in the complaint were complicated and complex and could not be conveniently determined in a summary enquiry under the Consumer Protection Act. The Commission also noted that the complainant had already filed a writ petition in the High Court and a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court, both of which were dismissed. The Commission observed that the complainant could seek redress in a Civil Court, if so chooses and is so advised.

Issues: 1. Whether the allegations made by the complainant constitute deficiency in service or negligence in the performance of services under the Consumer Protection Act? 2. Whether the State Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court and the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court? 3. Whether the questions involved in the complaint are complicated and complex and cannot be conveniently determined in a summary enquiry under the Consumer Protection Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Commission held that the allegations made by the complainant, such as use of force, coercion, threat, arbitrariness, etc., do not constitute deficiency in service or negligence in the performance of services under the Consumer Protection Act. 2. The Commission held that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court and the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court. The Commission observed that the complainant had already availed the remedy of writ petition and the dismissal of the writ petition was based on the ground that the complainant may pursue his remedy in a Civil Court. 3. The Commission held that the questions involved in the complaint are complicated and complex and cannot be conveniently determined in a summary enquiry under the Consumer Protection Act.

Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed on the limited grounds that the allegations made by the complainant did not constitute deficiency in service or negligence in the performance of services, the State Commission did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the dismissal of the writ petition and the Special Leave Petition, and the questions involved in the complaint were complicated and complex and could not be conveniently determined in a summary enquiry under the Consumer Protection Act.