K.RANGA RAO & DR.(MRS.) MAMATA LAKSHMANNA, MEMBERS Vs. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I—OPPOSITE PARTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a frivolous complaint preferred by the complainant who claims to be a Cost Accountant. He has preferred this complaint against the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hyderabad -I on the ground that he had preferred two complaints on 23.9,1998, that they were given SR. Nos. 2563 and 2564 and that no further action was taken by way of directing notices to the opposite party even by the date the complainant approached this Commission by way of the present complaint dated 25.11.1998. It is no doubt a grievance which we take note of to act on the administrative side by calling for an explanation from the Serishtadar of the Hyderabad District For um -I. The complainant need not have preferred complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( the Act for short). He could have filed a revision petition to this Commission which has administrative control over the District Fora under Sub -section (2) of Section 24 -B of the Act Section 24 -B was inserted by Act 50 of 1993 with effect from 18.6.1993. But the question now is whether a complaint could be filed against a District Forum by the complainant before that District Forum complaining that there was deficiency in service on the part of that District Forum. The complaint would lie only against a trader or dealer in goods or person rendering service. The District Forum under the Act is neither. It only performs a statutory function. It is not the contemplation of the Act that its services are to be hired by a complainant for consideration. The complainant appeared in person and states that he is a tax payer paying tax to the State. But tax is collected by the State in exercise of its sovereign power. By no stretch of imagination can the tax paid by a citizen be considered as consideration for the functioning of any Statutory Authority or body. We, therefore, find that the complainant is not a consumer because he had not hired the services of the District Forum for any consideration. The Forum acts only under the statute and not on the basis of hiring of services with or without consideration; no hiring is involved. This complaint is, therefore, dismissed.

(2.) IN the result, CR. SR. No. 3515/1998 is dismissed.