DEPOT MANAGER A P S R T C Vs. B JAYAPRAKASH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) F. A. I. A. No.720/1997 is for condoning the delay of 99 days in presenting the F. A. S. R. No.1619/ 1997 questioning the order of the Chittoor District Forum dated 25.2.1997 allowing the complaint CDC No.152/1995 preferred by the first respondent before us and directing them jointly and severally to pay Rs.77, 132.33 ps. and also to pay Rs.500/- towards costs to the first respondent/complainant. In the affidavit in support of the application for condoning the delay the reason for the delay is stated as follows : "i submit that the order dated 25.2.1997 was despatched on 3.3.1997 and the same was received by the Corporation on 4.3.1997. The Depot Manager, Madanapalli vide his letter No.03/785 (12)/95-MPL-I dated 12.3.1997 has sent the copy of the order of the District Forum and the case file to the Head Office to file an appeal against the order. The Law Department has sent the file to our Standing Counsel on 26.3.1997 for his opinion and drafting the case. In this regard I am instructed to state that the file got misplaced in the office of the Standing Counsel and could be traced only on 10.7.1997. Immediately thereupon he gave an opinion that it is a fit case to file an appeal and drafted the grounds and sent the file to Law Department on 11.7.1997 for its approval and fair typing. I submit that the Law Department has sent the file to the Standing Counsel on 11.7.1997, alongwith fair typed grounds, affidavits and petitions to file the same before the Hon'ble Commission. The appeal is filed on 11.7.1997 before the Hon'ble Commission "

(2.) We find that no sufficient cause is made out because the long delay of nearly 3 months is sought to be explained by stating that the file was misplaced in the office of the Standing Counsel. No affidavit of the Standing Counsel or any one connected with him has been filed. In the circumstances we find that sufficient cause was not made out for condoning the delay. F. A. I. A. No.720/1997 is therefore dismissed and the appeal F. A. S. R. No.1619/1997 is consequently rejected.

(3.) We find that the order of the District Forum so far as it is against the opposite parties 1 and 2 (petitioners/appellants before us) is vitiated by illegality and material irregularity. The case of the complainant was that he purchased a ticket for travelling from Chinthamani in Karnataka to Madanapalli and on 9.5.1994 he returned to Madanapalli around 11.00 a. m. and he was waiting for going to his village by another bus for which he was yet to purchase a ticket. About 11.30 a. m. he went into the lavatory in the bus stand and there paid 0.50 ps. to one M. Krishna who was an employee of the third opposite party Sri J. V. Chalapathi Naidu, who was the contractor maintaining the lavatory. According to the complainant in the lavatory he slipped and fell into the lavatory basin which was in a broken condition and sustained a cut injury to his right leg. He had to be assisted out and then as there was heavy bleeding he was taken to the hospital and he had to receive specialised treatment as well. The complainant sought from the opposite parties compensation of Rs.77,132.33 ps. The Chittoor District Forum allowed the complaint and awarded Rs.77,132.33 ps. towards compensation to the complainant and also Rs.500/- towards costs and directed all the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay the same. After going through the order of the District Forum carefully we find that the District Forum did not advert to the question of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2. There is no finding in that regard. The question that has to be answered before the District Forum awarded compensation against the opposite parties 1 and 2 was whether the complainant hired the services of the opposite parties 1 and 2 for consideration in respect of the lavatory used by him. Admittedly the lavatory was maintained by the third opposite party. The complainant completed his journey and was waiting for the next bus and then he made use of the lavatory in the bus stand. It was the third opposite party who collected payment for the use of the lavatory by the complainant. Under the circumstances we find that the complainant had not established that he had hired the services of the opposite parties 1 and 2 for consideration for using the lavatory. It may be that the complainant has a very good case in tort but unless he establishes that there was hiring of service for consideration he cannot have any relief from the Tribunals under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ('the Act' for short) because no consumer dispute could be made out without establishing the same. In the circumstances we set aside the order of the District Forum to the extent it directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs.77,132.33 ps. and Rs.500/- costs to the complainant in exercise of our jurisdiction under Sec.17 (1) (b) of the Act. Order against O. P. Nos.1 and 2 set aside.