K THILLAINAYAKAM vs Madurai City Municipal Corporation

-IN this revision petition filed against the Order dated 30. 10. 2006 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai the petitioner/complainant seeks enhancement of compensation beyond Rs. 2,000 as awarded by the State Commission. There is a delay of 412 days in filing revision petition for condoning whereof the petitioner has filed application. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of condonation application that the copy of order dated 30. 10. 2006 was made available to the petitioner on 16. 11. 2006. Petitioner thereafter filed review application which was dismissed as not maintainable by the order dated 19. 11. 2007 by the State Commission. Copy of the Order dated 19. 11. 2007 was received on 28. 12. 2007. Petitioner alleged that on receipt of copy of this order he made up his mind to file revision petition which has been sent by registered post on 23. 3. 2008. Delay in filing revision petition was not thus wilful but beyond the control of petitioner.

PETITIONER, a licensed Surveyor-cum-builder was licensed by the respondent/opposite party - Municipal Corporation. He applied for renewal of his licence for the year 1993-94 sending renewal application by registered post on 10. 5. 1993 and remitting the prescribed fee by postal order. Petitioner alleged that there was delay on the part of respondent Corporation in renewing the licence which caused business loss to him. Thus, claiming deficiency in service he filed complaint claiming total amount of Rs. 1,20,000 which was contested by the respondent Corporation, inter alia raising the plea that petitioner is not a consumer and the complaint was, therefore, not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum dismissed the complaint vide Order dated 25. 9. 2000 holding that in the matter of grant/renewal of licence the Corporation only discharges its statutory function and does not provide any service within the meaning of the said Act and renewal fee paid was only a statutory levy under the statutory provisions and the rules. Dissatisfied with the Forum''s order the petitioner filed appeal which was allowed by the State Commission setting aside the said finding returned by the District Forum and awarding amount of Rs. 2,000 as compensation. We have heard Mr. P. R. Kovilan, for the petitioner. As may be seen from the aforesaid order dated 30. 10. 2006 petitioner was represented through a Counsel in the appeal. Counsel must have been aware that a State Commission does not have the power to review its own order still review application was filed which came to be dismissed by the order dated 19. 11. 2007. Therefore, the period during which review application remained pending with the Commission cannot be excluded for computation of limitation period. Revision petition could have been filed within 90 days of the receipt of copy of the order on 16. 11. 2006 whereas it has been preferred on 1. 4. 2008 as reported by the Registry. Thus, sufficient cause is not made out for condoning the delay in filing revision petition. Condonation application is, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

That apart, on merit, we are in agreement with the view taken by the District Forum that in the matter of renewal of licence the respondent Corporation only discharges statutory function and does not render any service within the meaning of the said Act. Since the respondent Corporation has not come up in revision against Commission''s order, the finding returned to the contrary by the State Commission cannot be disturbed. In revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) we are not inclined to interfere with the order of State Commission as regards quantum of compensation awarded against the respondent Corporation.

REVISION is, therefore, dismissed on both the said counts. Revision Petition dismissed.