SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADRAS
Hon’ble Thiru Justice S.A. Kader, President &
Tr. R.N. Manickam, Member
SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (DRS) SIVAG ANGA—Appellant
versus
P. ANDIAPPAN—Respondent
A.P. No. 60 of 1994—Decided on 25.4.1994

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Tr. N. Deivasigamani, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Tr. P. Pandithurai, Advocate.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d) - Consumer Appellant leased out in public auction right to cut and remove trees - Complainant successful bidder - Due to delay in issuing order complainant could not cut and remove trees - Complaint filed claiming damages District Forum allowed, complaint appeal Complainant successful bidder in auction not hired or availed of services for any consideration - Not a consumer - Complaint to tally misconceived - Order of District Forum set aside.

       Held: The preliminary question, which arises for consideration is whether the Complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. Under this Section a person is a consumer, who hires or avails of the services of the Opposite Party for consideration. By no stretch of imagination can the Complainant, who has been the successful bidder in the auction, be said to have hired or availed of the services of the Tahsildar, Sivaganga for any consideration in the matter of the auction sale of the trees. The Complainant is not, therefore, a consumer. The remedy of the Complainant, if any, is before the Competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction. The complaint is totally misconceived. (Para 6)

       Result: Appeal allowed.

       IMPORTANT POINT

       A composite order cannot be passed under section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act.

       

ORDER

Thiru Justice S.A. Kader, President—The appeal is against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sivagangai, dated 24.12.92 in O.P. No. 69/92. The Opposite Party, Special Tahsildar, Sivaganga, formerly Tahsildar, Thiruppattur, is the Appellant.

2. The Appellant has leased out in public auction the right to cut and remove the trees on 27.7.90. The Complainant was the successful bidder f or Rs. 3,010/- and has also paid the entire amount of Rs. 3,010/- and Sales-tax of Rs. 241/-. Due to the delay in issuing the order, the Complainant could not cut and remove the trees and was damnified. Hence this complaint claiming damages in issuing the order of confirmation.

3. The claim was resisted by the Opposite Party.

4. The District Forum directed the Opposite Party to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 6,000/-, in default to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. It is this order that is challenged in the appeal.

5. It may at once be pointed that the default service fine of Rs. 5,000/- order by the District Forum is totally untenable. It has been repeatedly pointed out by this Commission that such a composite order cannot be passed under Section 24 of the Act. This portion of the order must fail forthwith.

6. The preliminary question, which arises for consideration is whether the Complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. Under this Section, a person is a consumer, who hires or avails of the services of the Opposite Party for consideration. By no stretch of imagination can the Complainant, who has been the successful bidder in the auction, be said to have hired or availed of the services of the Tahsildar, Sivaganga for any consideration in the matter of the auction sale of the trees. The Complainant is not, therefore, a consumer. The remedy of the Complainant, if any, is before the Competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction. The complaint is totally misconceived.

7. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed, but without costs throughout.

Appeal allowed.








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top