Services obtained through a bidding process or land rented on a plot basis are not considered consumer issues, as per established legal principles. This ruling was made by a district consumer commission that rejected a consumer's complaint against the Mumbai Port Authority. The commission stated that the matter fell outside the scope of the Consumer Protection Act and that the complainant did not qualify as a consumer.
The order, issued on October 25, was made by Pradeep Kadu, the president, along with Sheetal Petkar and Gauri Kapse, members of the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. This decision was a response to a complaint filed by Ketan Parekh, a resident of Grant Road, against The Board of the Mumbai Port Authority located in Ballard Estate.
Complaint Concerning Land Rented from Bombay Port Trust
In the 1960s, Parekh's father engaged in an open tender process to secure land on a rental basis from the Bombay Port Trust, now recognised as the Mumbai Port Authority. The complainant, in his grievance, raised concerns about the "revision of rent for monthly tenancy from the Mumbai Port Authority without considering the legitimate value of tenancy rights." His complaint also included issues such as the prevailing rate of return, deficiencies in services related to civic amenities like access roads, street lighting, water supply, drainage, and electrical substations.
Furthermore, Parekh requested that the Mumbai Port Authority be directed to complete the transfer process for joint tenancy or the transmission of tenancy rights from his deceased father to himself, following the applicable legal charges.
The Port Authority’s Position
During the hearing, the Port Authority questioned whether the complainant qualified as a consumer and opposed the complaint. The commission determined that "an individual who has obtained services through a bidding process and has leased a plot of land does not fall within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and does not meet the definition of a 'Consumer' as outlined in section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019." Consequently, the complaint was dismissed.
