Case nº Revision Petition No. 2822 Of 2011, (Against the Order dated 21/04/2011 in Appeal No. 79/2011 of the State Commission Delhi) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, October 13, 2011 (case Jai Gupta Vs 1. Rakesh Bhardwaj and Anr. 2. Indu Parkash Singh, General Secretary)

Judge:For Appellant: In person and For Respondents: Nemo
President:Mr. Ashok Bhan, President and Mrs. Vineeta Rai, Member
Defense:Consumer Protection Act
Resolution Date:October 13, 2011
Issuing Organization:National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
 
FREE EXCERPT

Order:

  1. Petitioner/complainant is a member of Flat Owners Association at MIG DDA Flats, Sheikh Sarai Phase I, New Delhi. He has been paying monthly subscription to the respodnents/opp.parties towards provision of security guard on the main gate. On 27.4.2007, a cyclist entered through the gate of the colony and knocked down the son of the petitioner resulting into severe injuries. Petitioner chased the cyclist and caught him. FIR was registered. Alleging that the respondents were guilty of deficiency in service in not engaging/providing the security guard, the petitioner filed the complaint seeking a direction to the respondents to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation. Rs.20,000/- were claimed towards costs.

District Forum dismissed the complaint, aggrieved against which, the petitioner filed the appeal, which has been dismissed by the State Commission in limine by observing thus:

5. We have perused the judgment of the District Consumer Forum and have heard the appellant in person who is himself a lawyer by profession and we are of the view that the findings of the District Consumer Forum are justified, and as such, we consider that there is no need for issuing notice to the respondent, and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. The grouse of the appellant is based primarily against the cyclist who injured his son by driving the bicycle negligently. That matter is pending in the criminal court and the District consumer Forum is not competent to take note of the same.

7. It cannot be said that there arises deficiency of service merely...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL