AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal is directed against an order dated 24.6.93 passed by the Calcutta District Forum in C.D.F. Case No. 244/92 dismissing a complaint filed by the appellant in the said Forum. From the records it is found that the complainant filed a petition complaining against an order for demolition of an alleged unauthorised construction by the C.M.C. His case was that he was the owner of Premises No. 23/H, Suresh Third Lane, Calcutta-10, which was constructed with due permission from the competent authority of the C.M.C. It is alleged that at the instance of Opposite Party No. 3, the C.M.C. suspected that the complainant was making unauthorised construction and accordingly the said Corporation placed guards to prevent such unauthorised construction. Ultimately on an enquiry in the matter and with notice to the complainant the C.M.C. passed an order for demolition of the unauthorised construction. By filing the complaint the appellant prayed for cancellation of the order of demolition made by the C.M.C.
THE Calcutta District Forum after hearing the petition of complaint and considering the facts placed before it, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant had an appropriate forum namely the Municipal Building Tribunal constituted under the C.M.C. Act, 1980 for agitating his grievance by way of an appeal. THE Forum also held that the complaint was not maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. We have seen the order of the Forum and we are satisfied that the Forum has correctly dismissed the complaint. The prayer for cancellation of a demolition order passed by the C.M.C. cannot be entertained before a District Forum. In fact the complaint filed by the complainant does not satisfy the requirements of a complaint as defined under Section 2(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appropriate Forum as has been rightly observed by the Calcutta District Forum is the appellate authority i.e. The Municipal Building Tribunal under the C.M.C. Act. The petition of complaint is a misconceived one and was rightly dismissed by the District Forum.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the order of the C.D.F. is confirmed. There will, however, be no order for costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.