R P SANGRA Vs. SANJAY VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant is an Advocate by profession and has lodged the complaint with the allegations that 30 years ago he put up his office chamber consisting of two rooms and one bath room in the first floor of "Sanjay Lodge, Jewel Chowk, Jammu." by paying initially Rs. 450 p.m. as consideration which subsequently was raised upto to Rs. 600 p.m. According to him during the above said period, he spent Rs. 5,19,000 for effecting repairs and had stocked his library books worth Rs. 5,38,000. The building of the above said lodge developed cracks therein and in order to remove them, he had been repeatedly making requests to the OP for effecting necessary repairs but all his requests had ended in vain. That during the summer vacations of the year 2008 when the Courts were closed, he had gone out side his headquarter and in his absence on 20.6.2008 his office chamber all of a sudden collapsed and fell down causing damage to furniture, fixtures and library books. FIR No. 99/2008 was lodged on 20.6.2008 in the concerned police station. According to him, he was staying as a consumer in the abovesaid lodge against monthly consideration of Rs. 600. The reliefs claimed by him are the refund of Rs. 51,900 as expenditure incurred by him for fixing fixtures and purchasing furniture. Refund of Rs. 5,38,000 as the cost of library books. He has also claimed Rs. 3,50,000 for the loss of his earnings as an advocate for being deprived of the use of chamber. In addition Rs. 50,000 p.m. are claimed till alternate office arrangement is made. Rs. 2.00 lacs as compensation for mental torture and agony. Interest @ 24% p.a. is also demanded on the abovesaid reliefs.

(2.) THE OP in the written version has raised preliminary objection that the complainant is not a "consumer" as defined under Section 2(d) of Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). That there cannot be any deficiency in service according to Sections 2(e) and 2(g) of the Act. According to him the complainant was a tenant who had stopped paying regularly the monthly rent and the arrears accrued against him were for the last many years. On facts, it is stated that the claims of the complainant are inflated as he has placed on record fudged bills. Prayer is made for the dismissal of the complaint. We have heard the arguments of Counsel of the complainant. No body is appearing on behalf of OP.

(3.) AT the out -set we have to see whether the complainant falls within the definition of "consumer" as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act. The complainant is trying to make out a case under Section 2(o) of the Act as according to him OP was rendering him regular service of boarding or lodging because he had been paying Rs. 600 p.m. as consideration. According to the OP, the complainant was his tenant who with the passage of time became bad tenant continuously for the last many years. Instead of making payment of his accumulated arrears of rent, he has invented an unethical device to get himself unduly enriched by pleading that he was a consumer in the above stated "Sanjay Lodge" for the last thirty years. In order to understand legal meaning of the words "Boarding and Lodging" reference is made to Blacks Law Dictionary. Word "Board" means "daily meals furnished to a guest at an Inn. "Lodger" is a person who rents and occupies a room in another s house. He is a person who occupies designated area in another s house but acquires no proprietary interest in that area, which remains in owner s legal possession" under Section 2(d) of the Act it has to be seen whether the complainant had hired the services of the OP for consideration as a consumer or not. According to the showing of the complainant he had set up his office chamber for the last 30 years before it collapsed. The Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act came into force in the year 1987. In the complaint, he has said nothing about the monthly payment being made initially of Rs. 400 p.m. which subsequently was raised to Rs. 600 as to the fact whether it was by way of rent or as a fee for being a licensee. The concept of consumerism had not at that time dawn in the legal parlance. On the other hand, the OP had taken clear and specific plea in defence that the complainant is a bad tenant who for the last so many years has stopped making the payment of rent. In the presence of such pleadings, questions of facts and law are involved in the case. Such a view is further fortified from the fact when OP has alleged that the complainant has produced forged and fabricated bills worth lacs of rupees. In this view of the matter, the complainant has failed to prove his status as a "consumer" falling within the definition of the term "consumer" under the Act. Accordingly, we find that the complaint is not maintainable because under the Act reliefs of summary nature are granted in a speedy manner. The complainant, in case so advised, is at liberty to approach any Forum of competent jurisdiction to get redressal of his grievances. The complaint is dismissed, without any order as to costs.