Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

M. Jayalakshmi, vs Bmtc on 13 April, 2012

  
 
 
 
 
 
 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BANGALORE
  
 
 
 
 
 







 



 

 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,   BANGALORE. 

 

   

 

 DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF APRIL 2012  

 

   

 

 PRESENT 

 

   

 THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAMANNA : PRESIDENT 

 

  SMT.RAMA ANANTH : MEMBER
  Appeal No.576/2012  

M. Jayalakshmi, W/o. Javaregowda, Aged 60 years, R/of No. 256/5, M.S. Building, Yalahanka Upanagara, Bangalore 560064.

 

(By Shri/Smt S.M. Hegde Kadave)     Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Central Office, 2nd Floor, Shanthinagar, Bus Terminal Complex, K.H. Road, Bangalore 560027 Rep. by its Commissioner.

   

Complainant before the DF .Appellant/s  

-Versus-

     

Opposite Party before the DF .Respondent/s   O R D E R S ON ADMISSION HONBLE JUSTICE MR.K. RAMANNA : PRESIDENT The appellant herein not being fully satisfied with the order dated 29.2.2012 passed by the 3rd Additional District Forum, Bangalore in Complaint No.2663/10 whereby the complaint filed by the appellant came to be allowed and the respondent / OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- with a further direction to refund the security deposit of Rs.8000/- to the complainant if it is not yet refunded.

The compensation amount shall be paid within 30 days from the date of the order failing which the respondent shall pay interest at 9% pa from the date of default until actual payment.

 

2. We have heard the appellant party in person for admission and perused the records. Her case is that the respondent allotted a open space measuring 3 ft x 4 ft for the purpose of running telephone booth and she was required to pay Rs.800/- pm as license fee. The respondent issued the allotment letter with its terms and conditions. As per Clause 4 the period of license was 6 years whereas she has deposited rs.8000/- as security for that transaction and she was regularly paying the license fee. Without prior notice, all of a sudden asked the appellant to vacate the telephone booth for the purpose of renovating the bus stand even though she was paying monthly fee of Rs.1,139/- and the tenure was six years and forced her to vacate the place and possession was taken by the respondent. Therefore she filed a suit in O.S.No.2503/09 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore and during the pendency of the suit the respondent demolished the telephone booth and thereby caused damages to her booth. Therefore she filed the complaint seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

 

3. Of course after service of notice, the respondent herein appeared before the DF and filed the version contending that she is not a consumer. However, the allotment of the said space to run the telephone booth by granting license by receiving fee has been admitted. But in terms of the agreement the respondent is entitled to terminate the license or lease without assigning any reason and by giving one months notice. The termination notice for terminating the license with effect from 10.4.2009 was issued to the appellant on 6.4.2009 and it was served on the appellant personally on 17.4.2009. Even after one month the appellant failed to vacate the space allotted to her.

Therefore, the respondent / OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4. After considering the materials placed on record, the DF however allowed the complaint and passed the impugned order under challenge.

 

5. The terms and conditions stipulated in the license granted to the appellant while allotting the space is to run the telephone booth and the same is not in dispute. The respondent though issued the termination notice with effect from 10.4.2009 was issued to the appellant on 6.4.2009 and it was served on the appellant / complainant on 17.4.2009.

Therefore the DF held that no notice as required under the allotment letter issued by the respondent and high handedly the appellant has been dispossessed.

 

6. But the District Forum has not recorded its finding with regard to the contention taken by the respondent that she is not a consumer. The relationship in between the complainant and the respondent / OP is lessor and lessee. Moreover, there is no finding recorded with regard to the suit field by the appellant. Considering the averments of the complaint and the defense taken by the respondent in its version it could be said that the appellant is not at all a consumer.

 

7. When, once the suit has been filed seeking relief of injunction the DF ought not to have been entertain the complaint under Section 12 of the CP Act. The applicability or otherwise of the terms and conditions of the license is to be decided by the civil court. Instead of dismissing the complaint at the threshold, the DF however allowed the complaint by granting compensation of Rs.50,000/- and also directed to refund the security amount. Therefore, in view of our finding recorded, we do not see any good reasons to entertain this appeal for enhancing the compensation.

Therefore, we pass the following:

O R D E R Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.
 
PRESIDENT MEMBER Nrr*