KONETI NAGA SUBBAMMA Vs. MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER CHAKRAYAPETA MANDAL CUDDAPAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is not maintainable because there was no order of the District Forum on any complaint under Sec.14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('the Act' for short ). An appeal lies to State Commission only from an order made by the District Forum. In the present case the grievance of Mr. B. Nagulaiah, who purports to prefer this appeal, is that the complaint preferred by the Pulivendula Consumer Society (of which he is the President) on behalf of one Smt. Koneti Naga Subbamma before the Cuddapah District Forum was not even numbered and was not attended to. He presented the original complaint on 13.4.1998 before the Cuddapah District Forum which was given S. R. No.561. It was returned with an endorsement dated 16.4.1998 to the effect that no consumer dispute was made out, hence returned.

(2.) In the circumstances, we examined the matter under Sec.17 (b) of the Act in order to satisfy ourselves whether the said return was vitiated by any illegality or material irregularity. At the outset, we have to notice that there is only an endorsement of return dated 16.4.1998 on the original complaint stating "returned. There is no consumer dispute, hence returned" with what appears to be the initialls of the President. No member signed or initialed it. We are inclined to take the view that such a return is bad. The complaint has to be considered by the District Forum and an order has to be made by the District Forum that no consumer dispute is made out; that means that the matter has to be enquired into by the District Forum comprising of the President and the Members of the District Forum and there has to be an order as required by Sub- section 2 (A) of Sec.14 of the Act.

(3.) However, going through the complaint carefully we find that no consumer dispute is made out. The complaint is as regards the inaction of the Revenue Authorities. The relief sought is that the records relating to the land of Smt. Koneti Naga Subbamma should be examined in order to see that she does not loose the land. In effect she is seeking relief as regards inaction or improper action on the part of the Revenue Authorities, who are Government officials. It is not stated how any hiring of service of the Revenue Authorities for consideration is involved in this case. We do not find any such. Therefore, we are satisfied that no consumer dispute is made out. It would be an exercise in futility to send back the papers to the District Forum under the circumstances. The matter is, therefore, closed.