M/s Surya Vamshi Builders v. Union of India
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission
Provisions considered
Judgment
M/s Surya Vamshi Builders, rep. by its Proprietor Sri G.Ravi Kumar and another Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, New Delhi and others …Petitioners …Respondents. Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The writ petition is misconceived. What is sought is a writ of Prohibition against the District Consumer Forum, Warangal, with regard to Consumer Case No. 55 of 2008 instituted by the 6th respondent. The 6th respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking compensation of Rs.19.50 lakhs towards damages, mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the members of the 6th respondent-Association in view of the defective service provided by the petitioners in Surya’s Sardar Azab Singh (apartments) Complex in Hanamkonda, Warangal. The petitioner contends (a) that the complaint by the 6th respondent claims defective execution of works beyond the terms of the agreement between the petitioner and members of the 6th respondent; (b) that the factual basis for the complaint of the 6th respondent does not exist; (c) that the procedures of the District Consumer Forum, are inadequate to ascertain the factual parameters of the disputes presented in the 6th respondent’s complaint; and (d) that prosecution of the case before the District Consumer Forum, Warangal would inconvenience the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the complaint of the 6th respondent does not satisfy the ingredients of a defective “service” as defined in Section 2 (o) of the Act. In elaboration, it is contended that ‘service’ excludes under the definition aforesaid rendering of any service under a contract or personal service. The several contentions aforestated require to be rejected out of hand. Rendering of a contract or a personal service is a well established concept. Construction and development activities do not fall within the rubric of contracts of personal service. Regarding the other contentions, these are equally without merit or substance. The complaint of the 6th respondent does set out the ingredients of an adjudicatable dispute falling within the jurisdictional contours of the Tribunals under the Act. The other contentions do not touch upon the jurisdiction of the Forum nor do they establish any patent lack of jurisdiction warranting issuance of a writ of Prohibition.
Operative part
The District Consumer Forum has not been established to suffer from any threshold and patent lack of jurisdiction, which is the substrative requirement for issuance of a writ in the nature of Prohibition. On the aforesaid analysis, no case is made out for interference. The writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J 13th April, 2010. GRR THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No. 26687 of 2005 (Order of the Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) Dated: 15-3-2010
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — s. 12.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.