Respondent No.1 filed the complaint before the District Forum against Nirulas Corner House Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent No.2 and Nirulas Food Delivery Services – Respondent No.3 alleging therein that he had purchased a bottle of ‘Coke Mobile 500 ml.’ for which Responents No.2 and 3 charged Rs.35/- from the complainant whereas the MRP printed on the said bottle was only Rs.15/-.  The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed Respondents No.2 and 3 to refund the sum of Rs.20/- (which was overcharged by the respondents), a sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded by way of compensation and Rs.2,000/- by way of cost of litigation.

          Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum, Respondents No.2 and 3 filed appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by a lengthy order by observing in para 22 of its order as under :

“Since we are receiving such complaints day in and day out, we hereby order that no person, hotel, restaurants, cinema complexes or any eating house shall charge for articles and goods more than the “MRP” printed thereon under the pretext that it is not a core activity and is merely incidental to overall services rendered by them.  If any complaint of this nature is received in future the culprit shall be visited with such a heavy punitive damages running into lacs that may drive them out from selling such articles or goods.”

          Respondents No.2 and 3 have not filed the Revision Petition.  Present Revision Petition has been filed by the Federation of Hotels & Restaurants Association of India, which was not a party respondent before the District Forum or the State Commission.  Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed the Revision Petition aggrieved by the observations made in para-22 of the order passed by the State Commission, which has been reproduced above.  Otherwise, the Revision Petition filed by him for redressal of the grievances of Respondents No.2 and 3 is not maintainable.  Under the Consumer Protection Act, only the aggrieved person can file the Revision Petition.  Since no award has been passed against the petitioner, Revision Petition shall not be maintainable.  However, since the State Commission has given general directions in para 22 of its order, which may affect the rights of the petitioner, we set aside the observations made by the State Commission in para 22 of its order.  State Commission had no jurisdiction to pass an order in general, in the manner in which it has been done without affording a hearing to the affected parties.  Rest of the order of the fora below is maintained.

          Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms.  No costs.