AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
1 paragraphs · 177 wordsWE have gone through the records of these two cases and we find that the Orders passed by the District Forum as well as the State Commission are legally unsustainable for the reason that both the Orders have been passed by only one single Member which is not warranted under the provision of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it stands after the recent amendment of the statute. Ordinarily, we would have remanded these cases to the District Forum for fresh disposal in accordance with law but on scrutiny of the records we find that the grievance put forward in the complaint filed before the District Forum relates to a dispute between landlord and tenant which does not at all come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Both these revision petitions are accordingly allowed. The Orders of the State Commission and the District Forum are set aside and the complaint petition is dismissed with costs which we assess at Rs. 2,000/- payable by the complainant to the opposite party. Petition dismissed.