Thiru Justice M.S. Janarthanam, President—The foundational facts giving rise to the present action may in brevity be stated for understanding the crux of the issue arising for consideration in this action.

2. One A. Rajagopal is the complainant. One Srinivasan is the opposite party. The said Srinivasan had been impleaded as an opposite party not in his personal capacity but in the capacity of his being the Secretary of Majestic Apartment Residents Welfare Association.

3. The complainant is having a cousin by name one Natarajan. The said Natarajan is the father of one Venkatasubramanian. The said Venkatasubramanian is the owner of flat No. 15, situated in second floor of Majestic Apartment. The above said Natarajan was residing in the said flat. He, it was said, was ailing. The complainant went to the Majestic Apartment on 11.1.1997 to see his ailing cousin.

4. There is a lift provided in the said Majestic Apartment. The complainant wanted to get into the lift. He opened the door and he made a step into the lift. He fell into the ground floor of the lift situated at a 5 feet depth. He, it is said, sustained severe injuries on his mouth. He took treatment for the injuries he had and spent a considerable amount by way of medical expenses.

5. The complainant would state that because of improper maintenance of the lift, he fell into the pit of the lift by the opposite party, he would say, would tantamount to deficiency in service.

6. Alleging the factors as above, he knocked at the doors of the Forum below for reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.

7. The Forum below even without issuance of any notice to the opposite party dismissed the complaint on the question of maintainability holding that the complainant on the facts and in the circumstances of the case cannot at all be construed as a consumer.

8. Aggrieved by the order as above, the complainant resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of his choice, namely learned Counsel M/s. Sheela Venkatesh and S. Sasi Rekha.

9. On service of process, the opposite party also entered appearance through a Counsel of his choice, namely learned Counsel M/s. K.V. Ananthakrishnan and V. Chandrasekar.

10. When the matter came up for hearing before us today, the said learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant were absent and no represention was made on their behalf. Learned Counsel Mr. A. Arockia Das representing learned Counsel M/s. K.V. Ananthakrishnan and V. Chandrasekar appearing for the respondent/opposite party is present in Court to present the hues of views in the matter.

11. Since the Forum below dismissed the complaint on the question of maintainability even before the issuance of notice to the opposite party, there is no need at all for the issuance of a notice to the opposite party in this appeal. The Registry, however, issued a notice to the opposite party and the opposite party also entered appearance through a Counsel of his choice. Legally speaking the said learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party need not at all be heard. Anyhow notice having been issued to the opposite party and the opposite party also engaged a Counsel of his choice, we heard the said learned Counsel Mr. A. Arockia Das. We also perused the materials placed on record.

12. Even at the outset we may point out that there are absolutely no merits in this appeal. The reasons are rather obvious. The cursory glance or glimpse of the pleadings as set out in the complaint would point out in no uncertain terms, the absence of materials as relatable to the existence of relationship of consumer as respects the original owner Venkatasubramanian qua the opposite party. There is no averments worth the name in the complaint as respects the factum of the said Venkatasubramanian hiring or availing the services of opposite party for consideration for the usage of the lift provided in the Apartment. When the original owner Venkatasubramanian cannot at all be construed as a consumer qua the opposite party