CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions(1993) 11 NCDRC CK 0043

Collector vs A.ARUCHAMY

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 8 November 1993 · Citation: 1994 1 CPJ 333 : 1994 2 CPR 433

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.A.Kader , R.N.Manickam , Ramani Mathuranayagam J.
RESULT
Appeal allowed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 357 words
1.

THE appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore dated 22.7.1993 in O.P. 576/92. THE opposite party is the appellant.

2.

THE complainant has taken lease to quarries stones in S. No. 391 of Chettipalayam village from THE opposite party Collector, Coimbatore District for THE period from 1.7.88 to 13.6.91 and paid a security deposit of Rs. 2,000/-.''This security deposit was not refunded after THE completion of period of lease inspite of repeated reminders and by lawyer's notice. Hence THE complaint. Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, the opposite party has refunded the money on 3.11.92.

The District Forum found that the delay in the refund of amount, amounted to deficiency of service and directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 140/- towards interest on the security amount, to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.500/.and costs of Rs. 250/-. It is this order which is the subject matter of this appeal.

3.

THE short point which arises for consideration is whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. Under the said Act a person is a consumer who hires the services of the opposite party for consideration, paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment. THE opposite party, Collector of Coimbatore has leased out the right to quarries to the complainant in S. No. 391 of Chettipalayam Village for the period from 1.7.88 to 13.6.91. THE leasing of this right does not amount to rendering of any services. THE fact that the complainant has made a security deposit does not also render the leasing of the quarries as a service. By no stretch of imagination, can the complainant be said to have hired the services of the opposite party for any consideration. THE complaint is therefore misconceived and must fail. This aspect of the matter has not also been appreciated by the District Forum. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside, and the complaint is dismissed, but without costs throughout. Appeal allowed.