AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
COUNSEL for complainant is present. None is present for opposite party.
THIS is complaint case for granting of compensation against opposite party. The allegations of the complainant in brief are : That the applicant was a tenant of House No. 117/5, Savodaya Nagar which was being used for residential as well as commercial purpose.
That a suit for eviction was instituted by the opposite party being Suit No. 1145/92. A notice was issued by registered post by the Court. But it was not served on the complainant and returned with endorsement "absent from his residence" on two occasions. Lastly, it was reported that the complainant has refused to take it on account of non-service of the notice, complainant could not defend the suit. It was all on account of faulty report submitted by the Postman. On enquiry from Postman it was found that notice was already delivered to one Sri Krishan Sindhu.
LEARNED Counsel for the complainant has been heard. According to learned Counsel on account of faulty report of the Postman, the complainant suffered a loss as the suit was decreed against the complainant for non- prosecution of the case and had been dispossessed of the property. It may be mentioned in this case, that suit was tried by Civil Court and complainant was served a notice then he should have put this cause before them.
THIS Commission has no jurisdiction under Consumer Protection Act to entertain the matter of this nature. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. Complaint is dismissed as not maintained. Let the copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rule. Complaint dismissed. __________________