H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA

Consumer Complaint No. 02/2009.

Date of Decision 28.04.2009.



Shri Uday Saraswati S/o late Sh. Arjun Dev Saraswati,

R/o Saraswati Vihar, Kasumpti, Shimla-9.

……..Complainant

Versus



1. The Municipal Corporation, Shimla-1

through its Commissioner;



2. General of Police, Block No.31, CID

Complex, Kasumpti, Shimla-9.

…….Opposite parties



Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel, President.

Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.

Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekher Sharma, Member.



Whether Approved for reporting? No.



For the Complainant. Mr. Vipinder Roach, Advocate.



For the OP No.1. Mr. Vijay Arora, Advocate alongwith

Mr. A.N. Sharma, Commissioner, MC,

Shimla.



For the OP No.2. Mr. Anoop Sharma, ADA.







O R D E R:



Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral)



Original file of the office of Municipal Corporation, Shimla vide diary No. 5272/eq/07 dated 24.12.2007, titled as Uday Saraswati Vs. Inspector General of Police has been produced by Mr. Arora. After 4.7.2008 no action was taken on it. We leave this matter here only with the profound hope, that whatever matters which come up before OP No.1, least that can be done is, that those are dealt with utmost expedition and dispatch.

2. At the time of hearing of this complaint a very serious contention was raised on behalf of the OPs, that even after accepting everything what is alleged in the complaint on its face value without being conceded, still neither their respective clients are service providers, nor they are providing service within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and at the same time the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of this Act, as such the present complaint is nothing, but an abuse of the provisions of the Act, supra and this Commission fell into error by issuing notice to the OPs.

3. At the same time Mr. Arora learned counsel for OP No.1 on instructions received from Mr. A.N.Sharma stated, that the complaint made vide Annexure C-5 of which file has been produced today will be dealt with and disposed of by OP No.1 by or before 30.6.2009 after hearing the parties, of course in accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order. In these circumstances, Mr. Roach submitted that he may be allowed to withdraw this complaint at this stage. After the complaint made by his client vide Annexure C-5 is disposed of by OP-1, in case the complainant is still aggrieved he shall take such remedy as is available to him under law by approaching appropriate court/forum. We however clarify that we have neither gone into the merits of the allegations made in the complaint nor adjudicated the question of maintainability of the complaint as was urged on behalf of the OPs.

4. In the light of the above facts and keeping in view the statement made by Mr. Arora since OP-1 has undertaken to dispose of Annexure C-5 with the complaint by or before 30.6.2009 and on this statement, the complaint is intended to be withdrawn. Matter stands disposed of finally in these terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Original record produced by Mr. Arora has been returned to him.

Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order from the Court Secretary free of cost as per rules during the course of this week.



Shimla.

28th April, 2009 (Justice Arun Kumar Goel) Retd.

Karan* President.





(Saroj Sharma)

Member.



(Chander Shekher Sharma)

Member.