D.O.F:16/11/2021
D.O.O:06/03/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
IA.380/22 In CC.No.205/2021
Dated this, the 6th day of March 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M: MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Paingot Biji Shiju,
W/o Shiju,
Paingot House, : Complainant
Podippalam,
Post Balal
(Adv.Mohanan Nambiar.M & Jebin Thomas)
And
Mathew Micheal,
S/o Micheal,
Residing at PuthuparambilHouse, : Opposite Party
Kuzhingad, Post Balal,
Parappa (Via)
Kasaragod- 671533
(Adv. Sri. V.P.Baby)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The Respondent / Opposite Party filed this IA to decide maintainability of the Complaint as a preliminary issue. The complainant filed counter with a prayer to dismiss the petition.
The case of the complainant is that he has obtained the room door No. BGP W III/65B on lease from Opposite Party for running chicken stall on 15/09/2020 for monthly rent of Rs.1,500/-. She spent Rs.2,00,000/- in the shop for starting the business. The complainant applied for trade license on 18/09/2020. She started business. She received a letter dated 27/01/2021 from Panchayath stating that room is classified as residential building and license cannot be granted for chicken stall. She closed the business. The opposite party having known that it is a residential room, cheated complainant. The Opposite Party is liable to pay the loss of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony, Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation. The complainant produced rent agreement dated 15/09/2020 and letter by Panchayath.
2. The Opposite Party filed written version, mainly contending that complainant being a tenant under Opposite Party, not rendering any service to the tenant and thus consumer complaint is not maintainable at law. Wife of the Opposite Party filed complaint against complainant, issued notice for appearance on 03/08/2021 dispute compromised, there is no loss due to any acts by opposite Party.
3. Both parties did not produce original rent agreement. Admittedly, the complainant is the tenant and Opposite Party is the landlord. Both are either governed by rent control Act or general law. The complainant seeks direction for payment of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of business due to closure of shop. There is no case of service to be rendered by landlord or deficiency in service relating to water supply, or electricity. Loss in business due to closure of shop is not coming under consumer dispute.
4. The complainant relies upon the decision reported in 2019(4) KHC 823 Punjab Urban Planning and Development authority v/s Vidya Chethal and another. The power of consumer forum extends to redressing any injustice rendered upon the consumer as well as any malafide capricious or any oppressive act done by statutory body. Here of course dispute relates to tenant and land lord not an act done by statutory body.
5. Finding is that sovereign functions do not contain consumer – service provider relationship in them and are not done for a consideration.
6. First of all whether a tenant under rental agreement is a consumer or not in rendering service in giving room for rent, and suffering of loss due to closing down of business comes under consumer dispute. There is no mention in the rent agreement relating to rendering of any service or claiming relief on deficiency in service in the complaint. The position of law is well settled in (2001) 9 SCC 604- Laxmiben v/s Sakerben Honorable Supreme Court held that Lakshmiben Lakshmi Chand Sha v/s Sakerben Kanji Chadam, 21/11/2000. On the facts of the case, therefore, it is clear that the complainant is not a consumer and hence for the reasons aforesaid, it is held that complaint is not a consumer, dispute is not coming under Consumer Protection Act and thus it is held that consumer complaint is not maintainable at law and accordingly complaint is dismissed as not maintainable at law.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Ps/ Assistant Registrar
