ANIL SONDHI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Briefly the facts are that the complainant purchased Shop No.3 Pocket 'c Vasant Kunj in an auction in Sept.86. A newspaper vendor platform was also auctioned by the DDA and it was purchased by Mr. Hansraj Bhutani. The platform is situated in front of the shop of the complainant. In 1990, it is alleged, that the owner of the platform installed shutters in the front and back of the platform and laid ceiling thereon; thus converted the platform into a shop. The alleged construction, it is pleaded, has obstructed the view of the complainant's shop, on account of which he has suffered loss of Rs.5 lacs. It is further pleaded that the DDA did not take any action against the said shopkeeper. Consequently he filed the present complaint for recovery of damages and for direction that the construction be demolished by DDA.

(2.) The complaint is contested by the respondent. They have admitted that shop No.3 was purchased by the complainant, that the platform was situated in front of his shop and that construction has been made on the platform. However, it is pleaded that the construction has been made without the prior permission of the DDA and consequently show cause notice was issued. Thereafter, notice to remove the unauthorised addition and alteration was given to Sh. Bhutani but instead of removing the construction on the platform he filed a suit for injunction. He also obtained a stay order from the Court of Sh. A. S. Yadav but that was later on, withdrawn. In the circumstances it is alleged that they cannot, be blamed and are not liable to pay any compensation.

(3.) The first question that arises for determination is, whether the complainant is a 'consumer'qua DDA for claiming direction that they should get the structure on the platform removed. The word 'consumer' has been defined in Sec.2 (1) (d) which inter-alia says that a consumer means any person who hires or avails of any service for consideration. In the present case, in my opinion, it cannot be said that any service was hired by the complainant from the DDA for removal of structure. The prayer of the complainant for directing the DDA to demolish the structure of third person cannot therefore be granted u/sec.14 of the Consumer Protection Act. It is also relevant to mention that the purchaser of the platform is not a party to the present proceedings.