K THILLAINAYAKAM Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision arises upon the dismissal of the revision preferred by the complainant aggrieved over the dismissal of the appeal by the State Forum as against the award passed by the District Forum.

(2.) By construing himself as a consumer, the complainant prayed for a compensation of Rs.99,998/-. By its order dated 12.3.1997, the District Consumer Forum, Madurai accepted the grievance of the complainant and ordered for a compensation of Rs.10,000/- only. Aggrieved by that, the complainant preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Redressal Forum, which was dismissed on 19.11.1997 holding that the complainant/revision petitioner was not at all a consumer. As against that, the complainant preferred a revision before the State Consumer Redressal Forum and that was also rejected without even numbering. Hence the revision petition.

(3.) . The revision petitioner is a licensed builder accustomed of drawing plans on behalf of the actual builder and getting them approved from the Municipal Corporation the first respondent herein. As per the by-laws relating to the Madurai Municipal Corporation Licensing of Builders and Surveyors under Section 433(12) of the Madurai City Municipal Corporation Act, the licensed builder, who has signed in the plan, shall be deemed to have been employed by the owner or the other persons as the case may be for the execution of those works included in the plan till their completion in all respects. Since the revision petitioner was paying the licence fee from time to time, he was construed as a licensed builder.