MAYA RAMKHYANI Vs. KRISHNA HOMES, BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS
LAWS(MPCDRC)-2006-11-2
MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMISSION
Decided on November 29,2006

Maya Ramkhyani Appellant
VERSUS
Krishna Homes, Builders And Developers Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS appeal is by complainants whose complaint (No. 468/2004) against respondent -"Krishna Homes Builders & Developers" claiming possession of a shop/hall with compensation, has been dismissed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal vide order dated 25.5.2005.
(2.) EARLIER also the present complaint was dismissed by the Forum below on 11.1.2005 on the ground of tenability that the service in question having been hired for commercial purpose, the complaint filed on 23.8.2004 i.e. after coming into force of the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 was not maintainable. However the appellant -complainants in appeal were allowed to amend their complaint to aver that the shop was sought to be purchased by them for earning their livelihood by way of their self -employment. After this amendment the case was remanded by this Commission on 14.10.2005 to the Forum below for decision afresh. The District Forum after taking additional evidence of the parties again dismissed the complaint reiterating its earlier ground that the service in question was obtained for commercial purpose and the complainants cannot be, therefore, treated as "consumers" of the respondent under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . On merits also it was held that there was no deficiency on the part of respondent.
(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel for parties and also gone through the evidentiary material on record. Complainants have again moved amendment application seeking to add some more averments in the complaint to clarify the position as to how they intend to use the said hall for earning their livelihood by way of self -employment. This application is also being considered along with the merits of the appeal. At the out -set it may be observed that the complainant No. 2 is a Government servant presently posted in the State of Chhattisgarh. She is aged 46 years and her retirement is not in sight in near future. It cannot be thus said that the shop in question was sought to be purchased by her along with her husband exclusively for the purpose of earning their livelihood by way of self -employment. However the appellants by way of further amendment now wanted to ever that appellant No. 2 wanted to take voluntary retirement, but could not do so on account of delay/refusal on the part of respondent to make the shop available to the appellants. Several other amendments to substantiate this point are sought to be added in the complaint by way of amendment. Proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act are summary in nature and certainly it is not a regular civil suit. If we allow the amendment at this distance of time, the case has to be remanded back to the Forum below and likely to take some much more time for decision thereby frustrating the very object of the CP Act.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.