State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sunila Singh vs Saran Kumar Mishra on 11 August, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 11.08.2008 Appeal No. FA-645/04 (Arising out of Order dated 16.07.2004 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Institutional Area, New Delhi in Case No. 456/02) Smt. Sunila Singh Appellant W/o Sh. C.M. Singh, Through 24, Dayal Nagar, Mr. C.M. Singh, Dayal Bagh, A/Rep. Agra. Versus 1. Sh. Saran Kumar Mishra Respondent No.1 E-8, Pocket-B,Through Soami Nagar New Delhi. 2. Delhi Dayal Bagh Coop. Respondent No.2 Housing Building Society Ltd., Through Soami Nagar, Mr. S.P. Juneja New Delhi. Advocate CORAM: Justice J.D. Kapoor President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral)
1. There is a dispute between brother and sister. Their father late Sh. Uma Shankar Mishra was a member of respondent-2 society Delhi Dayalbagh Coop. House Building Society Ltd. He was allotted Flat No. E-8, Pocket-B, Soami Nagar vide licence deed dated 16.03.81. It was alleged that late Sh. Uma Shankar Mishra appointed the appellant as his nominee in respect of this flat. After the death of Sh. Uma Shankar Mishra respondent-2 vide its letter dated 22.09.85 permitted the appellant to continue occupation of the flat as nominee of his father. Subsequently respondent-1 dispossessed the appellant as by way of transfer of her husband he had shifted to Agra. In respect of forcible possession by respondent-1, police report was also lodged alleging deficiency in service against the respondent society in permitting the respondent-1 to take forcible possession of the flat which was earlier given occupation to the appellant, the respondent filed the instant complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against her brother respondent-1 and society respondent-2.
2. Vide impugned order dated 16.07.2004 the District forum dismissed the complaint as through this complaint only repossession of the flat was being sought from respondent-1 and as such it was a case of civil nature and does not fall within the consumer dispute. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3. As is apparent from the allegations and counter allegations, the respondent-1 is alleged to have forcibly taken the possession of the flat which was earlier occupied by her in her capacity as a nominee of the original member and the question of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent-2 does not arise as the respondent-2 had already occupied as nominee of the original allottee. Moreover, a criminal complaint was also lodged against respondent-2 u/s 145 & 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for repossession of the flat that was occupied by respondent-1 on the same cause of action and the same complaint was dismissed by the SDM for lack of evidence.
4. The aforesaid reasons rightly persuaded the District Forum to dismiss the complaint which was neither a consumer dispute as there was no allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent-2. It is a dispute of succession of the original allottee between the brother and sister. Since the dispute can be adjudicated only by way of civil remedy by approaching the Civil Court as such a remedy is not available under the Consumer Protection Act, the appeal is dismissed.
5. FDR if any, deposited by the appellant, be returned to the appellant forthwith under proper receipt.
6. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
7. Announced on 11th day of August, 2008.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member ysc