KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 508/2022

JUDGMENT DATED: 10.11.2022

(Against the Order in C.C. 301/2022 of CDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN              : PRESIDENT

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                               : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                                          : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                                    : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Muraleedharan V.E., C/o Hny/Capt. N. Gopalakrishna Panicker (Retd), Nirmalayam, T.C. 2265/(3), V.N.R.A. 132/8, Kundamanbhagom, Vattiyoorkavu P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 013.

                                (Party in person)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

G. Sasidharan Pillai, Secretary, Sree Krishna Kshethra Vikasana Trust, Sree Nilayam, Amayida, Ambalappuzha-688 561.

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 301/2022 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (District Forum for short), dismissing the complaint.  The respondent herein is the opposite party in the complaint.

2.  According to the appellant/complainant he was a tenant under the Sree Krishna Temple Trust of Ambalappuzha.  His case is that, he was in possession of a shop owned by the temple as a tenant.  However, during the Covid pandemic period, at a time when he was hospitalised and under treatment for Covid-19, he had been forcibly dispossessed by the respondent/opposite party.  According to him, the high-handed action of the respondent constitutes unfair trade practice and serious deficiency in service.  His case is that, he was dispossessed after admitting him to a Covid treatment centre, with the help of Police.  Therefore he claimed compensation.

3.  The District Commission posted the case for hearing on the question of maintainability.  After hearing, the complaint has been dismissed placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Ben, Laxmi Chandh Shah Vs. Saker Ben Kanji reported in 1(2001) CPJ 7 SC wherein it has been held that a tenant was not a consumer since the landlord is not a person who had agreed to render any service to the tenant as per the lease agreement.  The said order is under challenge in this appeal.

4.  According to the appellant who appeared in person, there was no proper lease agreement between him and the temple authorities.  He had been in occupation of the tenanted premises.  His case is that he had been admitted to a Covid treatment centre and while he was undergoing treatment there, the tenanted premises were taken forcible possession of by the respondent herein, with the help of the Police.  The appellant claims that he is a consumer, entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission.

5.  This appeal comes up before us for admission.  Though it is vehemently contended by the appellant that he is a consumer, we are not able to agree.  Admittedly, the appellant is a tenant who was occupying the premises