G. Subramania Pillay vs V. Balaganesan

THE complaint was laid by the complainant alleging that an Advocate Mr. V. Balaganesan of Nagercoil who was appointed as a Commissioner by the Sub-Court, Nagercoil in O.S. No. 121 of 1994 on 6.10.1998 to visit the suit property, measure it and submit a report, did not inspect the site immediately but inspected the site only on 16.10.1999 and 29.1.2000 and in spite of many requests by the complainant''s Advocate, the report was not submitted immediately and there was abnormal delay and, therefore, on account of the inaction on the part of the opposite party much loss damage, hardship and mental agony has been caused to the complainant and, therefore, there is deficiency in service and hence the opposite party must be made to compensate the complainant accordingly for such lapses. THE complaint was returned by the lower Forum stating that since the matter related to a pending civil dispute in which the Advocate namely the opposite party was appointed as Commissioner the complaint cannot be entertained before the Consumer Forum and, therefore, on that ground it was returned.

THE complainant''s case in short is that the opposite party who was appointed as Commissioner did not inspect the property early and even after inspection which was done belatedly, he has failed to submit his report early and delayed the same and as a result the complainant has been put to monetary loss, mental hardship and agony. Admittedly on the application of the complainant, the Civil Court had appointed the said Advocate, opposite party in the complaint, as the Commissioner. When the Civil Court has appointed the Advocate as the Commissioner he becomes an officer of the Court and he is answerable to the Court concerned, which appointed and he cannot be brought under the definition of "Consumer". Merely because the complainant paid remuneration to the Commissioner as ordered by the Court, it cannot be stated that there has been a hiring of service of the opposite party by the complainant. THEre is no privity of contract, as such, between the complainant and the opposite party. THE deficiency in order to make it a basis for a claim before this Court must have arisen from any fault, imperfection, inadequacy or shortcoming relating to a contract between the parties or otherwise in relation to any service. Here in this case if the Advocate appointed as Commissioner had not taken steps early, the remedy of the complainant is to have moved the said Civil Court and sought a direction to the Commissioner to inspect the property early and submit his report. If he has again failed to do anything, it is always open to the complainant to take any civil action against him in a Court of Law for any loss sustained by him on account of any negligence, carelessness or failure on duty on the part of the said Advocate Commissioner. But by no stretch of imagination he can be termed as a consumer nor it can be stated that he has been hired by the complainant to do service and, therefore, in that view of the matter, we have to hold that the view taken by the lower Forum is correct and we do not find anything to interfere the same. Consequently this revision petition is rejected. Revision Petition dismissed.