Reserved
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P., Lucknow.
Revision No. 13 of 2020
Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. through
Its Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution
Division I, Etawah. ….Revisionist.
Versus
M/s Baba the Mall, Shastri Chauraha,
Etawah. ….Respondent.
Present:-
Hon’ble Justice Mr. Akhtar Husain Khan, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Vikas Saxena, President.
Mr. Isar Husain, Advocate for revisionist. Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for respondent.
Date: .6.2020
ORDER
Present revision petition has been filed under section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 29.1.2018 passed by District Consumer Forum, Etawah in complaint no.248 of 2017, M/s Baba the Mall vs. Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. whereby District Consumer Forum, Etawah has allowed application for interim relief and has stayed recovery of RC dated 16.1.2018 issued by opposite party of complaint against complainant of complaint.
Revisionist is opposite party of above complaint.
Ld. Counsel Mr. Isar Husain appeared for revisionist.
Ld. Counsel Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta appeared for opposite party.
We have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and perused impugned order as well as records.
(2)
It is contended by Ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the amount of RC is above Rs.20 lacs. As such, the complaint is beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum and impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum is without jurisdiction.
It is further contended by ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the opposite party of revision who is complainant in complaint has taken electric connection in question for commercial purpose. As such, the opposite party of revision is not a consumer as defined in section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Impugned order is without jurisdiction as well as against law on this ground also.
Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has referred judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, reported in 1995 AIR 1428 SCC (3) 583.
Ld. Counsel for opposite party has opposed revision petition on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.
It has been contended by ld. Counsel for the opposite party that the revision petition filed by revisionist is barred by limitation and no application has been moved for condonation of delay.
It has been further contended by ld. Counsel for the opposite party that the revisionist has not raised objection before District Forum regarding pecuniary jurisdiction and maintainability of complaint. Therefore, these issues can not be raised in this revision petition.
It has been contended by ld. Counsel for the opposite
(3)
party that the District Forum has rightly exercised jurisdiction vested in it under section 13(3-B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and there is no sufficient ground to justify any interference.
Ld. Counsel for opposite party has referred following judicial pronouncement.
- Kerala State Electricity Board & anr. vs. Yesu Adimanadar (died) thr. Legal Heir, II(2016) CPJ 238 (NC).
- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. s. Amit Jain, IV (2018) CPJ 77 (NC).
- Lavanya Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. Santanu Swapan Kumar Das & ors., IV (2018) 54 (NC).
- Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs. DLF Universal Ltd. & anr., AIR 2005 SC 4446.
In reply it has been submitted by ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the revision petition is within time. Certified copy of impugned order has been furnished to revisionist on 16.12.2018 and thereafter, revision petition has been filed on 28.2.2020 within limitation prescribed.
We have considered the submissions made by ld. Counsel for the parties.
We have perused the case laws referred by ld. Counsel for the parties.
Sub rule 10 of rule 4 of the U.P. Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 provides that orders of the District Forum shall be communicated to the parties free of charge but no free certified copy of the impugned order has been furnished to the revisionist/opposite party. Revisionist/opposite party has
(4)
been provided certified copy of the impugned order for the first time on 2.12.2019 on payment of charges and thereafter, revision petition has been moved on 28.2.2020 within 90 days from the date of obtaining certified copy of impugned order. The District Forum did not furnish free certified copy of impugned order to the revisionist. Therefore, limitation for filing revision should be counted from the date on which certified copy of impugned order was provided to the revisionist for the first time. As such, revision petition is within time.
In complaint before the District Consumer Forum, complainant now opposite party in revision has claimed refund or adjustment of Rs.19,50,000.00 allegedly excess deposited amount.
In view of reliefs claimed in complaint valuation of complaint is below Rs.20 lacs and the complaint is within pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum but vide impugned order dated 29.1.2018 the District Consumer Forum has stayed recovery of RC dated 16.1.2018 which has been issued by revisionist against the opposite party of the revision for Rs.39,47,035.00. Thus, it is apparent from the impugned order that the District Consumer Forum has stayed recovery of Rs.39,47,035.00 beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction and reliefs claimed in complaint.
Furthermore, the averment made in paragraph 9 of the complaint shows that the RC dated 16.1.2018 has been substituted by revised RC of Rs.28,70,305.00 but in the impugned order the District Consumer Forum has not considered this aspect of the case and has stayed recovery of
(5)
RC dated 16.1.2018 which had already been revised prior to filing of complaint.
In view of discussions made above, we are of the view that the District Consumer Forum has committed material irregularity in passing impugned order on interim relief application.
In the impugned order, District Consumer Forum has not decided the issue of maintainability of complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. We are of the view that this issued should be raised before the District Consumer Forum and the District Consumer Forum should decide this issue in accordance with law.
In view of conclusion drawn above, revision petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum is set aside and the District Consumer Forum is directed to pass fresh order on interim relief application in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to both parties.
Revisionist who is opposite party in complaint is at liberty to raise objection before District Forum on maintainability of complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. If such objection is raised by the revisionist/ opposite party before the District Consumer Forum, the District Consumer Forum shall decide the objection within 30 days from the date on which such objection is raised by the revisionist/opposite party.
Parties shall appear before the District Consumer Forum on 31.7.2020.
(Justice Akhtar Husain Khan) (Vikas Saxena)
President Member
Jafri PA II
Court No.1
