Pothireddipalli Sugunavati vs BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.

THE present revision petition has been filed by Smt. Pothireddipalli Sugunavati, whose husband, Shri P.V. Krishnaiah was the Managing Partner and her son, late Shri P.V. Ramasastry was the partner, who were appointed dealer in the firm''s, named, M/s. P.V. Krishnaiah & Co. by OP''s predecessor Burma Shell for running a Petrol Bunk and stopped business on 18.10.1964. Business was stopped and individual liability was crystallized on 23.10.1964. Late son of the complainant, Shri P.V. Ramasastry, who was looking after the family affairs also, renewed lease with successor company known as Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Lease rent for the months of July to September, 1980 was paid to him after 6th September, 1981 as per Ex. 3 as per Chartered Bank letter dated 1.9.1981. Due to abnormal delay of one year in receiving cheques, the complainant lessor sent a communication dated 18.10.1980 to send the lease rentals through Shri V.M. Shastri, dealer during the entire lease period. Son of the complainant unfortunately passed away in the year 1998 and dealer stopped paying lease rent stating that there was a litigation pending between him and his brother''s son and as such BPCL was not paying the lease rent. It is alleged that legal heirs of one Mr. V.V. Shasty filed collusive partition suit with absurd claim that this property was purchased by them in Court auction in the year 1971 and their ancestors, Shri V.V. Shastry, who died on 30.9.1993 executed lease agreement with B.P.C.L. which came into existence in 27.1.1976 making OP as a party and partitioned the land through Lok Adalat compromise and sold away when the entire land was under possession of OP as lessee. Consequently, the complainant was subjected to loss of Rs. 40 crores'' property. Consequently the present complaint was filed before the District Forum with the following prayers: "(a) Directions to OP for providing statement of loan account of M/s. P.V. Krishnaiah & Co. or at least mention nature of loan, sanctioned amount or such adjustments made arriving to unsettled and final dues remaining if any as per Ex. 1 through a reconstructed account letter, as appearing in their books of accounts alone and for providing any of the 60 + documents of repayment evidence of a stranger paying such never existed dues to Burma Shell in EMI of Rs. 1,200 as purchase consideration as stated by them in Ex. 2.

(b) For awarding compensation of Rs. 10 lakh for loss and detriment suffered by complainant due to loss of property, loss of lease rentals for a period of 16 years, and for unnecessary litigation before Courts all due to malfeasance, misfeasance of Public Authority, deficiency of opposite party in not providing statement of account for 7 years. Compensation is claimed on 25% share of lease income for 16 years at the rate which BPCL has been paying to Guntur Municipal Corporation towards lease for other Retail outlet site, and towards expenses for litigation in net returning title deeds."

The District Forum dismissed the complaint on a number of grounds. It came to the conclusion that the territorial jurisdiction of the case does not lie with it because no transaction took place at Guntur. It was clear that there was relationship of lessor and lessee which does not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Reference was also made to the order passed by the A.P. High Court, which was dismissed. A previous complaint was also filed which was also dismissed by the State Commission. The National Commission also held that the petitioner also is not a consumer. It is contended that petition is barred by time.

AN appeal was preferred before the State Commission. The State Commission held that: "As against the said order, she approached this Commission and filed F.A. No. 550 of 2011 and that appeal also was dismissed by this Commission. As against the said order of this Commission, the complainant/appellant herein approached the National Commission and filed a revision petition and the said revision was also dismissed by the National Commission. At the time when the said revision was dismissed it appears that the National Commission had categorically observed that the complainant cannot be defined as a ''consumer'' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. In those circumstances, we are of the view that the District Forum is justified in holding that the complainant is not a consumer and if she has any grievance she may have to agitate the same before a competent Civil Court. In those circumstances, we have no hesitation to confirm the said order passed by the District Forum."

I have heard the learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. She has reiterated the case of the petitioner. It is clear that the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to try this case. This case is between the lessor and the lessee. There is a dispute regarding the accounts. The reasoning given by the Fora below cannot be faulted. The revision petition is without merits, therefore, the same is dismissed.