State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
D.K. Lalwani vs Bhilai Steel Plant & Ors. on 10 January, 2011
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G)
Appeal No.766/2010
Instituted on : 29/12/2010
D.K. Lalwani, S/o Late Shri Kotumal Lalwani,
R/o : MIG-II/131, HUDCO,
Bhilai, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G) .... Appellant
Vs.
1. Bhilai Steel Plant,
Steel Authority of India Limited.
Through : It‟s Managing Director,
Ispat Bhawan,
P.O. Bhilai, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G
2. Union of India, Ministry of Steel,
Through : Director (SAIL-CIP), Udyog Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 001
3. Steel Authority of India Limited.
Through : Chairman, Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110 003
4. Government of Chhattisgarh,
Through : The Chief Secretary,
Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan,
P.O. Raipur (C.G)
5. The Collector,
Durg District
P.O. Durg (C.G)
6. District Registrar, Stamps & Regn.
P.O. Durg (C.G) ... Respondents
PRESENT :
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
// 2 //
Appellant present in person.
ORDER (ORAL)
DATED : 10 /01/2011 PER :- HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT The Complaint Case No.210/2009 of the appellant herein, has been dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) vide order dated 13/12/2010, holding that he does not come under the category of „consumer‟ as defined in Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the District Forum, does not enjoy any jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It has also been held that matter in this regard, is pending before Chhattisgarh High Court and earlier also a Writ Petition was decided by the Chhattisgarh High Court.
2. On similar facts, earlier Mr. M.S. Bhaskaran, has also filed a consumer Complaint Case No.42/2009 before the District Forum, Durg and this Commission while deciding Appeal No.158/2010 vide order dated 28/07/2010 has already expressed opinion that "since the dispute involved in the appeal in hand as well as that in the Writ Petition is based on similar facts and the questions involved would have far reaching effects, we are of considered view that the same cannot be decided in summary proceedings before the consumer fora."
// 3 //
3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that facts of that case are beyond the scope of summary trial under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore, that appeal was dismissed. We still have the same view. There are very much complicated questions of facts and law involved in the matter i.e. question of issuance of notification of acquisition in respect of land in question as well as right of the State Government, right of the Union Government and Bhilai Steel Plant, which is an authority under the Government of India, different orders issued by State Government, B.S.P. Union of India at different point of time and their consideration and expression of opinion on those orders, will be of far reaching effects.
4. As this Commission already considered the aforesaid points in appeal No.158/2010 Steel Authority of India Ltd. Bhilai Steel Plant V. M.S. Bhaskaran & Anr. and vide order dated 28/07/2010 allowed the appeal of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bhilai Steel Plant and dismissed the complaint of complainant Shri M.S. Bhaskaran on the ground that Writ Petition for considerations of the same questions is pending before the High Court and therefore, the same can not be decided in summery proceedings before Consumer Fora.
// 4 //
5. In view of this, we do not find any ground to admit this matter for final hearing. The appeal has got no substance and is liable to dismissed in limine at Motion Hearing Stage without notice to the respondents and the same is dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (Smt. Veena Misra) (V.K. Patil)
President Member Member
/01/2011 /01/2011 /01/2011