Back
ORISSA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
A.K. Samantaray, President and Smarita Mohanty, Member
SURENDRANATH KHUNTIA - Appellant
Versus
CHIEF SECRETARY-CUM-SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA AND ORS. - Respondents
Appeal No. 182 of 2008
Decided on : 12-08-2010
Party in Person, for the Appellant; None, for the Respondent
The court clarified the scope of the Consumer Protection Act in relation to disputes involving sovereign authorities and the applicability of the definitions of consumer, service, and deficiency.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Land Conversion Dispute - Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(l)(o), Section 2(g)
Fact of the Case:
The complainant leased land from the State Government and sought to convert it to free-hold land. Dispute arose over the fees demanded for conversion and alleged encroachment on government land.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complainant was not a consumer and the opposite parties, being part of the sovereign power of the State, were not service providers under the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint was dismissed as misconceived and not maintainable.
Issues: Whether the complainant was a consumer and whether the opposite parties were service providers under the Consumer Protection Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the definitions of consumer, service, and deficiency under the Consumer Protection Act and applied precedents to determine the jurisdiction of the consumer forums in disputes involving sovereign authorities.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the consumer complaint was deemed misconceived and not maintainable.
ORDER
A.K. Samantaray, President - This is a First Appeal by the unsuccessful complainant assailing the judgment and order of the District Forum, Khurda at Bhubaneswar dated 5.2.2008 passed in CD Case No. 180 of 2006. The learned District Forum, by the aforementioned judgment and order, which is assailed here, has held that neither the complainant is a consumer nor the opposite parties service providers. It has further held that the opposite parties having functioned and performed duties as a part of the sovereign power of the State cannot be brought under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Under the Consumer Protection Act, the Forums and Commissions are discharging quasi-judicial function and the purpose of the agencies is to decide consumer disputes and as such they are remedial agencies.
2. Coming to the facts of the complaint filed by the complainant-appellant, we find that the complainant was in possession of a piece of land taken on lease from the State Government. The complainant has got a house over the same having an area of 246 decimals. The State Government framed rules to convert lease-hold lands to free-hold lands on payment of the required fees for the same. According to the complainant, the opposite parties demanded fees at a higher rate than what has been prescribed under the rules vide Annexure-1 and such higher payment put the complainant to humiliation. It is also the case of the complainant that the opposite party respondents alleged that the complainant was in possession of more land than what had been leased out to him having encroached over Government land of the size 90 x 4 , i.e., 360 sq. ft. The complainant verified the same and found the allegation to be totally false. According to the complainant, the opposite parties collected Rs. 74,360 in place of Rs. 37,180, at the rate of 10% over the value, although they should have collected at the rate of 5%, as per Annexure-1. Although the complainant made all attempts and moved the opposite parties for settlement of the matter, the same was not done. Since there was inordinate delay in settling the matter, he filed the consumer dispute claiming compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 from the opposite party-respondents.
3. The opposite parties filed written version. It is their case that the collection of fees for conversion of lease-hold land into free-hold land was not made in excess of the stipulations made in the circular (Annexure-1). It was made strictly in accordance with the provisions of the circular. The complainant encroached some Government land, which was ascertained after measurement of the land by Amin/technical expert of the Government, and the fact had been intimated to him. It was, inter alia, pleaded in the written verson that the complaint was not at all maintainable as the Government was not made a party to the dispute and without any notice having been issued under Section 80, C.P.C.
4. The written version of the opposite parties was filed in shape of affidavit. The complainant also filed affidavit evidence.
5. The complainant appeared in person and argued his case. It was submitted by him that the 5% excess fees collected from him should be refunded to him as per the provisions of the rule in Annexure-1. The same amount should be refunded with interest, and compensation should be awarded for the deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties.
6. Before us in this appeal, none appeared for the respondents. The complainant-appellant appeared in person and made his own submissions. We have heard the appellant exhaustively and examined the impugned judgment and order of the learned-District Forum, Khurda. The appellant laid stress and urged before us that the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India have been violated by the respondents while dealing with his matter and by doing so they have committed sheer deficiency in service for which they should be burdened with compensation. This Commission has no writ juris
