ADWATIA PRASAD BISWAL Vs. J. BAG AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.7.2003 passed by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Cuttack, thereby dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the order dated 29.5.2003 passed by the District Forum, Sundergarh, Rourkela.

(2.) The petitioner herein had filed a complaint against the respondent Estate Officer before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the latter in not issuing the certified copy of the order dated 4.7.2002 passed by the Estate Officer. Petitioner had averred that Rourkela Steel Plant had allotted one residential quarters in his favour and subsequently it cancelled the allotment and he filed RP case No. 8037/2000 before the Estate Officer. The Estate Officer passed an order dated 4.7.2002, which he wanted to challenge by preferring an appeal before the District Judge, Sundergarh, the Appellate Authority, and for that purpose he wanted to obtain certified copies of the documents pertaining to the case. Accordingly, he made an urgent application on 5.7.2002 in the office of the Estate officer by paying requisite fee and he was assured that copies would be delivered to him on 18.7.2002. In spite of repeated persuasions and visits to the officer concerned, the certified copies were not made available to him, as a result of which he suffered loss and damage. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, he filed the consumer complaint. The complaint was resisted by the respondent raising preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the petitioner was not maintainable because the complainant was not a consumer and the Estate Officer was not rendering any service within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection (CP) Act and also on the ground that the copies of the documents had since been received by the complainant and, therefore, he had no subsisting cause of action. The complainant had also arrayed the Managing Director of Rourkela Steel Plant as a party in the complaint but subsequently his name was deleted from the array of parties.

(3.) On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material brought on record the District Forum dismissed the complaint primarily for the reasons that the petitioner-complainant cannot be regarded as a consumer under the provisions of Sections 2(1)(d)(ii) and 2(1)(o) of the CP Act, 1986. Besides, the District Forum also took a view that the functions discharged by the Estate Officer were Statutory and adjudicatory functions and it cannot be said that the Estate Officer and the subordinate officials working in the said office were rendering any service for consideration. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed, thereby confirming the order passed by the District Forum.