S.N.KAPOOR, B.K.TAIMNI
Nagar Panchayat Naraini – Appellant
Versus
Raj Kumari – Respondent
B.K. Taimni, Member—The petitioner was the opposite party before the District. Forum, where the respondents had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.
2. Very briefly the facts leading to filing the complaint were that the petitioner being a Nagar Panchayat, to the general public announced through a general announcement (Munadi) that they are going to develop land for commercial work for which Rs.2,000 was to be deposited, another Rs.10,000, was required to be deposited for repairing the nala, levelling of the land, filling the soil etc., which was non-refundable. In response to this announcement, the respondents/complainants deposited Rs.12,000 with the petitioner. But when the allotment was not forthcoming, a complaint was filed before the District Forum. Petitioner did not file any reply as per Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act, before the District Forum. Only preliminary objection was filed, which reads as under:
“1. That the opposite party keeping its right protected from filing its written statement submit the preliminary objection.
2. That between the complainant and opposite party there is no relation of consumer becaus
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.