KSRTC Vs. MANIAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. Haris Beeran, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on admission. He contends that the dispute relates to the grant of a contract/license to operate a telephone tooth at a - bus station, which the respondent. no. 1/complainant had obtained/procured by virtue of being the -highest bidder in an open tender under the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between them. Referring to the judgment of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.T. Chandigarh Admn. v. Amarjeet Singh, II (2009) CPJ 1 (SC)=II (2009) SLT 736=(2009) 4 SCC 660], he submits that respondent no.1/complainant would not qualify to be a 'consumer ' as defined under Section 2(l)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the District Forum had correctly dismissed the complaint whereas the State Commission has utterly failed to appreciate this legal proposition by reversing the District Forum 's order. In awarding the contract/license the petitioner was not rendering any service to respondent no. 1/complainant and, therefore, the State Commission has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction. The revision petition arising out of a reversal order, under the circumstance, needs consideration.

(2.) SUBJECT to the petitioner directly remitting a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - to respondent no. 1/complainant by means of a demand draft to meet her travel and allied expenses in connection with these proceedings, notice be issued to the respondents return able on 13.12.2012.