BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.

FA.NO.126/2022 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.328 OF 2016, ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, RANGA REDDY Between:

M/s.Gunguroo Bar & Restaurant Rep. by its Manager, Situated at Plot No.131, Narmada Arcade, Snehapuri Colony, Nacharam, Hyderabad – 500076.

....Appellant/Opp.Party No.1 And

1. Ramu Konakalla, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Research Associate in GVK Bio Limited, Narmada Arcade, Snehapuri Colony, Nacharam, Hyderabad, R/o.H.No.2-20-3/168, Adarsh Nagar, Chiluka Nagar, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District.

....Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. Mr.Indra Reddy, R/o.Plot No.131, Narmada Arcade, Snehapuri Colony, Nacharam, Hyderabad.

3. M/s.Sunlifts, Rep. by M.Sanjeeva Reddy, No.9-71/1C, HMT Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad.

....Respondents No.2 & 3/ Opp.Party No.2 & 3 (R2 & R3 are not necessary parties In this appeal)

Counsel for the Appellant/Opp.Party No.1 : M/s.P.Rajasripathi Rao Counsel for the Respondent 1/Complainant: Sri A. Karunakar QUORAM:

HON’BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN…IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU….MEMBER-JUDICIAL FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR *******

Order : (Per Smt.Meena Ramanathan, Hon’ble I/c President)

1. This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order passed in CC.No.328 of 2016 dated 22.01.2021 on the file of District Consumer Commission, Ranga Reddy.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.

3. The brief substance of the complaint herein is as follows:-

The Complainant aged about 30 years went to the Opposite Party No.1-Bar & Restaurant for dinner (at 10 P.M.) with six colleagues on 29.05.2015. After completion of dinner, while coming down on the lift, he claims that the lift hit the ground floor with force and he sustained grievous injuries and was immediately shifted to a hospital for treatment. He later underwent surgery and was forced to discontinue his job for three months and sustained huge loss of earnings and is also now suffering from a permanent disability as he is unable to walk properly. He has filed the present complaint stating that the accident occurred only because of the negligence of the Opposite Parties and therefore, is claiming compensation for his sufferings.

4. The Opposite Party No.1 filed their written version denying all the allegations made in the complaint and further state that the Complainant is not their customer and has created a false story to file the present complaint. He has not filed any proof with regard to his claim and it is their humble submission that he could have sustained injuries somewhere else but is attributing the damage and negligence to this Opposite Party without proper evidence.

With the above submissions they seek dismissal of the complaint.

5. In the written version filed by Opposite Party No.2, it is stated that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no justification that the Complainant sustained injuries because of the non-functioning of the lift and merely attributing negligence without proper documentary evidence in support of his claim, cannot be entertained under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

6. In the written version filed by Opposite Party No.3, they have denied the allegations made in the complaint and further submitted that this Opposite Party had not received any intimation regarding the breakdown of lift on 29.05.2015 or on the next day. Insofar as this Opposite Party is concerned, the lift is in good condition and it is their submission that the Complainant might have sustained his injuries elsewhere but is attributing negligence on this Opposite Party without any material evidence. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

7. During the course of enquiry the Complainant filed evidence affidavit and got marked Vide Ex.A1 to A4. The Opposite Parties filed their evidence affidavit and no d