State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
K Kousalya vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 25 May, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM First Appeal No. A/221/2022 ( Date of Filing : 26 Apr 2022 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. CC/44/2022 of District Palakkad) 1. K KOUSALYA NO.532, OPPOSITE TO GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, AGALI, ATTAPPADI, KERALA PALAKKAD KERALA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, OTTAPPALAM PALAKKAD KERALA 2. The Tahsilshar Agali,Agali Post,Attapadi,Kerala 3. The Village Officer Agali,Agali Post,Attapadi,Kerala. 4. The Circle Inspector Attapadi Police Station,Attapadi,Kerala. 5. The Station House Officer Attapadi POlice Station,Attapadi,Kerala. 6. Mr.Arun Gandhi Attapadi 7. Mrs.Vanaja Salem,Tamilnadu. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RANJIT.R MEMBER SMT.BEENAKUMARI.A MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 25 May 2022 Final Order / Judgement KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.221/2022 JUDGEMENT DATED: 25.05.2022 (Against the Order in C.C.No.44/2022 of CDRC, Palakkad) 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. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANT: K. Kousalya, D/o K. Kandhasamy, Door No.532, opposite to Government Hospital, Agali, Attappadi (by Advs. Fabid Ahmer & Anwar Sadath) VS. RESPONDENTS: 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ottappalam 2. Thiru. Venugopal, Tahsildar, Agali, Agali Post, Attappadi, Kerala 3. Thiru. Shaji Kumar, Village Officer, Agali, Agali Post, Attappadi, Kerala 4. The Circle Inspector, Attappadi Police Station, Attappadi, Kerala 5. The Station House Officer, Attappadi Police Station, Attappadi, Kerala 6. Arun Gandhi, S/o Subramaniam, residing at Arun Gandhi Niwas, Agali, Agali Post, Attappadi, Kerala 7. Vanaja, W/o Ramalingam, residing at Door No.32, Thamannan Chetty Road, Veera Boyan Colony, Salem, Tamil Nadu JUDGEMENT
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT The complainant in C.C.No.44/2022 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission for short) is before us in appeal, aggrieved by an order dated 30.03.2022 by which, her complaint has been dismissed at the threshold.
According to the appellant, she is in the process of constructing a multi- storied building in her property. The construction has been stopped midway because of orders passed by respondents 1 to 3, allegedly at the instigation of respondents 6 and 7. According to the petitioner, they had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and had obtained orders directing that Police protection should be provided to her. In spite of the above, it is alleged that the respondents had failed to protect the interests of the complainant. Consequently, the construction activity has been stalled and the appellant has suffered huge losses and hardships. The District Commission has found that the grievance of the appellant was against the stop memo issued by the 3rd respondent pursuant to an order passed by the Revenue Division Officer, Ottappalam. Though it is alleged that the said order was issued at the insistence of respondents 6 and 7 it has been held that the appellant could not be considered to be a consumer who has availed services provided by the respondents. Accordingly, the complaint has been dismissed.
The counsel appearing for the appellant submits that though the respondents are statutory authorities discharging statutory functions they are providing services to people like the appellant herein. It is because of the deficiency in the service so provided that the appellant has been suffering untold hardships, misery and financial loss. Therefore it is contended that the grievance of the appellant is actionable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for which, adequate compensation is necessary to be granted by this Commission. The learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (1994) 1 SCC 243 to point out that, in the said case the Lucknow Development Authority was held to be an authority providing a service under the Consumer Protection Act. However, we notice that in the said case the court was concerned with the question as to whether deficiencies in the construction of houses provided by the Development Authority would constitute deficiency in service actionable under the Consumer Protection Act. In such a case we have no doubt that the person who claims allotment of such units would become a consumer and the authority would be the provider of such services. That is not the situation in the present case. In this case, the appellant has not availed any service provided by the statutory authorities who are made parties to this appeal. The appellant in this case is challenging the statutory orders passed by the Revenue Division Officer, on the basis of which the stop memo has been issued by the Village Officer. The orders passed are in exercise of statutory powers conferred on the said authorities. Such orders, if the complainant is aggrieved by them, have to be challenged in appropriate proceedings either before the appellate authorities provided or before the High Court. The counsel has also placed reliance on the decision in Sri. Rakesh K. Dhawan Vs. Union of India & others (C.C.No.110/2006 on the file of the State Commission, Delhi) to contend that such statutory authorities are dealing in funds that form part of the public exchequer, and therefore, the complainants are entitled to file complaints against them before the Consumer Courts. Such a situation also does not exist in the present case since no money that forms part of the public exchequer has been utilised or refused to be utilised for the benefit of the appellant in this case.
We have perused the order passed by the District Commission carefully. We find that the issue has been addressed properly by the District Commission. We find no grounds to interfere with the order appealed against. This appeal is therefore dismissed, without costs.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN :
PRESIDENT T.S.P. MOOSATH :
JUDICIAL MEMBER RANJIT R. :
MEMBER BEENA KUMARY A. :
MEMBER K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN :
MEMBER SL [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH] JUDICIAL MEMBER [ SRI.RANJIT.R] MEMBER [ SMT.BEENAKUMARI.A] MEMBER [ SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R] MEMBER