DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER Vs. TILAK RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS revision is directed against the order dated 16. 7. 2003 of H. P. Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla only setting aside part of the order of District Forum dated 9. 5. 2002 of awarding Rs. 2,000 as cost. The District Forum had allowed the complaint with directions which being material, are re-produced below:

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. Respondent/complainant alleged that he applied for loan to Industrial Department on 16. 6. 2000. Since he wanted to start furniture shop at Khaliar he took a shop on monthly rent of Rs. 1,000 on 10. 6. 2000. He submitted the application dated 16. 10. 2000 which was recommended by the Field Staff i. e. B. O. and Range Forest Officer, on 24. 10. 2000 to the petitioner/o. P. for issue of licence for running furniture business. Respondent alleged that the petitioner failed to take decision on his application with the result he suffered loss of rent of Rs. 23,000. Alleging deficiency in service he filed complaint seeking certain reliefs which was contested by filing written version by the petitioner. Though the receipt of application dated 16. 10. 2000 was admitted but it was alleged that the matter was examined through the officials of Department and as the unit was not found feasible the application was rejected on three grounds. It was pleaded that it was the discretion of the petitioner to allow/disallow the application for issuance of licence for running furniture business to the respondent. It was further alleged that the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) nor was any deficiency in service on part of the petitioner as alleged. The District Forum allowed the complaint with the directions noted above observing that the petitioner had neither mentioned the date of rejection of application in the written version nor had he filed the inspection report of the field staff on the basis whereof the application was rejected and the respondent was not informed of the rejection of application. Order of State Commission would show that one of the submissions advanced on behalf of petitioner was that the respondent not being a 'consumer' the complaint itself was not maintainable under the Act as also pleaded in written version. However, the State Commission brushed aside this submission observing it to be irrelevant.

(3.) VIDE order dated 29. 5. 2007 the respondent has been deemed to be served with the notice in revision.