Maharashtra

Central Mumbai

CC/22/50

Vincent D'souza - Complainant(s)

Versus

Improvements Committee, BMC - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

07 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CENTRAL MUMBAI
Puravatha Bhavan, 2nd Floor, General Nagesh Marg, Near Mahatma Gandhi Hospital
Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Phone No. 022-2417 1360
Website- www.confonet.nic.in
 
Complaint Case No. CC/22/50
( Date of Filing : 15 Mar 2022 )
 
1. Vincent D'souza
Pearl Colony, A/5, Dadar East, Mumbai-400014
Maharashtra
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Improvements Committee, BMC
Through its Chairman, Fort, Mumbai-400001
Maharashtra
2. B.M.C.
Through its Municipal Commissioner, Fort, Mumbai-400001
Maharashtra
3. B.M.C.
Through its Assistant Commissioner, G/N Ward, Dadar West, Mumbai-400028
Maharashtra
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. S. S. Mhatre PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. M.P.KASAR MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 07 Apr 2022
Final Order / Judgement

Order below section 36(2) of Consumer Protection Act 2019

Per M.P.Kasar, Member

Heard Complainant in person. Perused Complaint filed by the complainant and document annexed along with complaint at the stage of admission of complaint below section 36(2) of CPAct.

It is observed that, allegations made in complaint by the complainant are pertaining to three decisions and issues pertaining to the city of Mumbai approved by opposite party No.1 in the interest of citizens i.e.PAP housing scheme, change in reservation plot for schools, etc.putting land fill on Shivaji Park and costal road project. Hence according to complainant there is unfair trade practice, breach of trust, malpractices negligence, cost of complaint, and cost of litigation be imposed with compensation for mental agony and harassment.

We framed issue as follows

  1. Whether present complaint can be admitting against opposite parties? No
  2.  What an order? complaint rejected against opposite parties

As to issue No.1 :-We perused section 35(1) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, ‘A complaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered  or  any service provided or agreed to be provided, may be filed with district commission ....’

Thus allegations made by the complainant in present complaint against opposite parties are   pertaining to decisions taken by opposite parties .From the perusal of complaint we noted that, complaint revels violation of rights of consumers as a class due to decision of opposite parties and is subject matter of section 17 of  The Consumer  Protection Act 201 .So opposite parties cannot be held liable  individually to complainant at this point as complainant failed to prove that, there is directly deficiency in services or opposite parties adopted unfair trade practices towards complainant in regard services availed from opposite parties in lieu of taxes collected from the complainant .as interpreted in section 35(1) of CP Act 2019 we are of the opinion that present complaint cannot be admitted against opposite parties below section 36(2) of CPAct 2019 at the admission stage.

Considering findings derived from the above issues we pass order as follows:

                                            ORDER

  1. CC N.22/50 is hereby rejected against opposite parties below section 36(2) of Consumer Protection Act 2019
  2. No order as to cost.
  3. Copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties.
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. S. S. Mhatre]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. M.P.KASAR]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.