Delhi

StateCommission

RP/95/2018

TANUSHREE BHALLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

AIRTEL EXPRESS & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

14 Sep 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :14.09.2018

Date of Decision : 03.10.2018

Revision Petition No.95/2018

In the matter of:

 

Tanushree Bhalla,

B-16/1 Ramesh Nagar (Double Storey),

New Delhi.                                                                                                        .........Petitioner

                                                Versus

 

1. Airtel Express,

B-11, Ground Floor,

Tagore Garden Shopping Centre,

New Delhi-110027.                                           …....Respondent No.1

 

2. Bharti Airtel Ltd.,

6th Floor, Tower-A, Plot-16,

Udyog Vihar Industrial Area,

1.  

Gurugram-122001.                                           ……Respondent No.2

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastab va, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

1. The present revision has been filed by complainant against order dated 24.04.18 passed by District Forum in CC No.436/16.
2. According to petitioner the respondent no.2 was proceeded exparte by the District Forum on 22.08.16. The said order was set aside by this Commission vide order dated 03.01.17 in RP No.211/16. Respondent no.2 was directed to pay Rs.7,000/- as cost on 04.01.17 and District Forum was to permit the petitioner to file WS within 7 days.
3. The respondent no.2 appeared before the District Forum on 04.01.17 and offered to pay cost which was not accepted by the petitioner on the ground that the offer was made by unauthorised person on behalf of respondent no.2, cheque was not issued from the account of respondent no.2.
4. On 24.04.18 the representative of counsel for respondent no.2 explained that cheque was drawn from the account of main counsel because getting a cheque from the account of respondent no.2 would have delayed the proceedings. It is to be noticed here that this Commission set aside the exparte order on 03.01.17 and the respondent no.2 did not have sufficient time to call for a cheque from respondent no.2. That is why counsel for respondent not.2 offered the cheque from his own account. This shows the bonafide of respondent no.2. No prejudice was being caused to the petitioner by accepting the said cheque. It appears that the petitioner is harping upon an opportunity to get exparte order by one means or the other.
5. Vide impugned order the District Forum over ruled the objection of the petitioner and opined that respondent no.2 has complied with the directions of the State Commission in order dated 03.01.17. Objections of the petitioner to application were found frivolous and rejected. Application of respondent no.2 was allowed and WS was taken on record. Respondent no.2 was directed to pay the cost by way of demand draft in favour of complainant on the next date i.e. 08.08.18.
6. Now grievance of the petitioner is that impugned order has affect of reviewing order dated 04.01.17 copy of which is at page-74. The said order reveals that at the first call complainant/ petitioner herein appeared and the OPs were noted to be exparte. The complainant filed exparte evidence by affidavit and case was listed to 03.07.17 for final arguments. On the next date i.e. 03.07.17 the counsel for OP appeared and fled reply/ WS alongwith application for taking the same on record and for paying cost as per order dated 03.01.17. The complainant refused to accept the cost of Rs.7,000/-, she did not accept copy of reply/ WS. Hence matter was adjourned to 08.09.17 for reply and arguments on application of respondent no.2.
7. We have heard the matter at length. We do not find that the impugned order has the affect of reviewing earlier order dated 03.07.17. The earlier order dated 03.07.17   did not decide the application of respondent no.2, it simply kept the same pending for reply and argument for 08.09.17.
8. The other grievance of the petitioner is that impugned order has been passed by Ms. Punit Lamba, Member and Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member. There is no signature of the President of the District Forum. According to her Section 14 (2) Consumer Protection Act lays down that every proceeding referred to in Sub-section (1) shall be singed by the President of District  Forum and atleast one Member there of sitting together. In other words according to  her the Members could not pass the impugned order, in the absence of the President of the District Forum.
9. We have given our anxious consideration to the matter and find the arguments to be fallacious. The order contemplated by Sub-section (2) of Section 14 refers to the final order and not to the miscellaneous order.
10. If the President  happens to be on leave on some date, it does not mean that the Forum is to be closed on that day. The Proceedings can be carried out and must be carried out by the Members.
11. The petition drew our attention to decision dated 11.03.11 passed by State Commission, Maharastra in FA No.6/2184 titled as Arjun Mewanand Ram Rajani vs. Hundai Motors India Ltd.  vide which the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint was  set aside on the ground that Member alone in the absence of President can not dispose of the case and deliver  judgement. We have carefully gone through the said decision. That was a case of final disposal of complaint and not miscellaneous order.
12. In the case in hand the Members of the District Forum  have not disposed of the complaint. They have simply passed miscellaneous order taking the WS on record. There does not seem to be anything wrong in doing so.
13. The petitioner in person urged that  District Forum did not call for written arguments as provided in Regulation 13 of Consumer Protection Regulations 2005. We have perused the said Regulations. It appears to us that the said Regulations is confined to final disposal of cases. To extend the principle of written arguments being filed on miscellaneous applications, would strike at the root of expeditious disposal of cases under Consumer Protection Act. More over we do not feel that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by not calling for written arguments.
14. Over and above all the present matter has come to us by way of revision petition and not appeal. The scope of revision petition is very very confined, as compared to appeal. The same does not permit re-hearing as a whole. It is confined to jurisdictional infirmities only  as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ruby Chandra Dutt vs. Union India Insurance Company Ltd. II (2011) CPJ 19.
15. Before parting with the records we may mention that the complaint is very noval. The petitioner/ complainant had mobile phone no.9810519689, she had a service contract with the provider to receive service at a fixed reasonable “per minute” call rate, as part of service promised during conversation to “life time connection”. The company violated contact at the first year itself when they disconnected the service and raised the call rates. Thing further deteriorated when “per second” call rate was raised to 2 per second despite the fact that complainant was old customer and a platinum customer. For that she prayed for compensation of Rs.15 lakhs as loss/ injury suffered by her.
16. The revision petition is dismissed.
17. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
18. One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information. The District Forum would issue notice to both the parties to peruse the matter
19. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                           (O.P. GUPTA)                               

      MEMBER                                               MEMBER (JUDICIAL)