The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the claim for punitive damages under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the consideration of compensation in cases where there is no direct privity of contract.

ORDER

Prem Narain, Presiding Member

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, whereby the petitioner herein seeks to assail the order dated 25. 9. 2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 691 /2007. By way of the impugned order, the appeal preferred against the order dated 11. 4. 2007 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "the District Forum") in C. C. No. 1039 of 2005 was allowed and the complaint was partly allowed.

2. Succinctly put, the facts of the case are that on 14. 8. 2002, the complainant visited Vamshi Estate for some official purpose. To reach the fourth floor of the said building, the complainant opted to use the lift, manufactured and maintained by opposite party No. 2. As the complainant was entering the lift keeping his one foot into the lift, the lift started to move towards first floor without closing the lift doors/ shutters and since, one foot was inside the lift, the complainant lost his balance and fell down. Consequently, the complainant sustained severe multiple grievous injuries and underwent hospitalization from 14. 8. 2002 to 21. 8. 2002. According to the complainant, opposite party No. 1 failed to display notice near the lift stating that the lift was not in a working condition. It has been submitted that a criminal case has been instituted before the Hon'ble XXIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum. Upon service of notice, the opposite party No. 1 filed the written statement before the District Forum and opposite party No. 2 was proceeded ex parte. Opposite party No. 1 contested the claim of the complaint on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation and did not fall within the scope of a consumer dispute as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was submitted that the lift was in working condition at all times, hence there was no question of displaying a notice stating that the lift was not in a working condition. Denying liability to pay damages to the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3. The District Forum vide order dated 11. 4. 2007, dismissed the complaint with liberty to the complainant to proceed against the opposite parties under the law of torts as the present complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act.

4. Aggrieved, the complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission. Vide order dated 25. 9. 2009, the State Commission allowing the appeal, ordered as follows:

"Accordingly, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum and consequently allowing the complaint in terms thereof. Opposite parties are directed to pay jointly and severally to the complainant a sum of Rs. 30,202. 65 with interest at the rate of 9% p. a. on the amount representing expenses in addition to damages of an amount of Rs. 3,00,000 and an amount of Rs. 5,000 by way of costs. Time for compliance six weeks. "

5. Aggrieved, the petitioners/opposite parties have approached this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned State Commission erred in entertaining the appeal when there was no consumer - service provider relationship as regards the respondent/complainant and petitioners/opposite parties. It was further submitted that since the respondent did not hire any services from the petitioners nor was a beneficiary of any services hired on his behalf, the respondent was not entitled to any compensation under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

8. The learned Counsel stated that the learned State Commission was not