ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. In this case by order dated 1.5.2003, we appointed Mrs. Rina Sarkar, Advocate as Amicus Curiae to assist us on behalf of the petitioner. She has filed an application praying for modification of the aforesaid order. She is right.
2. We were under the mistaken belief that the petitioner was complainant before the District Forum. It is not so. Petitioner was Opposite Party No.3 before the District Forum on a complaint filed by B. Jayaprakash Gupta. His complaint was that while waiting for the bus of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), he used the lavatory maintained by the petitioner after paying Re.0.50 as fee but he slipped on the floor and suffered injury. District Forum allowed the complaint both against the APSRTC as well as against the petitioner who was managing the lavatory and charging fee.
3. It appears from the order of the State Commission only the APSRTC filed appeal making the complainant and the petitioner as two respondents. Appeal of the APSRTC was allowed and the order of the District Forum was set aside. No appeal was filed by the petitioner who, as stated above, was managing the lavatory. After the order of the State Commission, on appeal filed by APSRTC, this petition has been filed by the petitioner since any liability imposed on APSRTC by District Forum has been set aside by the State Commission. For one thing petitioner himself did not file any appeal challenging the order of the District forum against him. Moreover, it was a clear case of deficiency of service inasmuch as he was not maintaining the floor of the lavatory properly though he was charging fee for the same. We, therefore, do not find it a fit case to exercise our jurisdiction under clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act.
4. The petition is dismissed. We express our appreciation for the assistance rendered to us by Mrs. Rina Sarkar, Advocate in the matter.