Per Justice Shri S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President:
Heard both the sides. This revision petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission. .
The revision petitioner has approached to this State Commission as against the order passed on 11/10/2010 by District Consumer Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban in consumer complaint no.2006/432.
The revision petitioner is original opponent and he is an advocate. Complaint no.2006/432 is pending before District Consumer Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban for deficiency in service as alleged by the respondent which the revision petitioner suppose to render him as an advocate. It appears that said complaint was stayed and was on sine-dine list from 15/04/2010. But by order dated 03/08/2010 said complaint was listed for further hearing on 24/09/2010. On said date the complaint cannot proceed as the President was absent. On 24/09/2010 it was adjourned to 11/10/2010. On this day revision petitioner submitted an application that in a similar case, Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by order dated 28/08/2009 stayed the proceeding till final disposal of SLP no.3052/2008 pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and therefore, the revision petitioner requested for staying further proceeding. However, District Consumer Redressal Forum observed that after considering this aspect, the case has been listed for hearing and order which have been passed by Hon’ble National Commission have been passed in respective proceedings and therefore, C.C.no.2006/432 cannot be stayed. When the revision petitioner requested to grant a time so as to obtain stay order from the State Commission, the time was granted by the District Consumer Redressal Forum to that effect. This order of the District Consumer Redressal Forum is challenged by filing revision petition.
Org.complainant is also present suo-motu before this Commission.
It is not disputed that the complaint which is pending before District Consumer Redressal Forum is against an advocate and the grievance is in respect of deficiency in service as an advocate or lawyer. The SLP no.3052/2008 etc. with SLP no.3053/2008 etc. is pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. These SLP’s have been filed by a Bar of Indian Lawyers being petitioners and D.K.Gandhi and ors. as a respondent. The Apex Court has passed order granting leave in all these petitions and dispensed with printing. The Apex Court is further directed that there shall be stay to the impugned order of National Commission during the pendency of the appeal. Taking cognizance of the order passed by Apex Court, the National Commission has also stayed the revision petition no.2698/2009 pending before it, waiting for the outcome of said SLP.
From the parties to the SLP, it appears that SLP has been filed in a representative capacity by the lawyers and Apex Court has stayed the order of National Commission. Therefore, Apex Court has seized with a point as to whether Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is applicable to the advocates or not. Therefore, the National Commission found it fit to wait for outcome of SLP. When this order has been brought to the notice of District Consumer Redressal Forum, District Consumer Redressal Forum should have noted that since the point of application of law is pending before Apex Court so far as the advocate is concerned, it is futile to decide the matter, because ultimately if Apex Court came to the conclusion that Act is not applicable to the advocate, decision contrary to that cannot be implemented. It is well considered principle of law that when any question of law is pending for adjudication before Apex Court, it is wiser for the subordinate court to wait for the decision of Apex Court. This simple elementary principle of law has been ignored by the District Consumer Redressal Forum especially when said District Consumer Redressal Forum is presided over by retired District Judge. He has also ignored to take cognizance of the fact that under Section 24-A National Commission is the administrative head for all the District Consumer Redressal Forum and State Commissions and the said body has also found it proper to wait for the decision of Apex Court. Under these circumstances, what persuaded District Consumer Redressal Forum to take otherwise decision in such a hasty manner is rather difficult to understand. The judicial propriety and dignity requires that subordinate authorities shall have a respect to the directions and orders passed by Apex Court. This elementary principle also has been ignored by the District Consumer Redressal Forum. Let the fact be as it is.
The order is required to be struck down. Therefore, the revision petition is allowed. As such, we pass the following order:
:-ORDER-:
1. Revision petition is allowed.
2. The order of the District Consumer Redressal Forum passed on 11/10/2010 in consumer complaint no.2006/432 pending before District Consumer Redressal Forum is hereby set aside. The complaint no.2006/432 shall be stayed till decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P Nos. 3052/2008 etc. with SLP no.3053/2008.
3. Respondent/complainant and/or revision petitioner to move the complaint after the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above referred SLP.
4. Dictated on dais in presence of parties.
5. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced and dictated on 8th December, 2010.
