Delhi

StateCommission

FA/863/2013

IDEA CALLULAR LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PREETI SINGHLA - Opp.Party(s)

25 May 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

 

Date of Decision: 25.05.2018

 

 

 

First Appeal No.863/2013

(Arising out of the order dated 13.06.2013 passed in Complainant Case No. 197/2010 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Delhi)

 

 

 

Idea Cellular Limited,

A-68, sector-64,

District Gautam Budh Nagar,

Uttar Pradesh.

…..Appellant

 

 

Versus

 

 

Ms. Preeti Singhla,

F-105, Aditya Tower,

District Centre, Laxmi Nagar,

Delhi -110092.

                                                .….Respondent

 

 

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

 

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the “Act”) against order dated 13.06.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Delhi (in short, the “District Forum”) in Complaint Case No.197/2010 whereby the aforesaid complaint has been allowed and appellant/OP has been directed to pay Rs.40,000/- to the respondent/complainant on account of harassment and mental pain alongwith interest @9% if it is not paid within 45 days of the order.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that a complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed by the respondent/complainant before the Ld. District Forum stating therein that she was the consumer of mobile connection No.9990000727 and was paying the bills regularly. However, services on her phone were disconnected by appellant/OP without any prior intimation to her. When she contacted the customer care of appellant/OP as to why her phone had been disconnected no response was given. It was stated that thereafter she visited the office of the appellant/OP number of times, despite that no satisfactory reply was given. Her grievance was that appellant/OP had disconnected the phone in an illegal manner and had sought direction for payment of Rs.74,000/- as compensation and Rs.25,000/- towards costs of litigation.
3. The claim was opposed by appellant /OP by filing a detailed written statement denying allegations of deficiency in service on its part.
4. The aforesaid complaint was dismissed for non-appearance of respondent/complainant on 20.01.2011 by the Ld. District Forum.
5. As per appellant/OP, after dismissal of the complaint on 20.01.2011,  at  the  same  time Ld. District Forum ordered to put up the case on 25.03.2011.  Instead of listing on 25.03.2011, it was listed on 15.03.2011.  Thereafter on an application of the respondent/complainant for restoration of complaint, the case was taken up by the Ld. District Forum on 11.04.2011.  On the said date, without issuing notice to the appellant/OP, Ld. District Forum allowed the said application and restored the complaint.  After restoration,  notice  was  issued  to  appellant/OP  for filing  evidence  by  way  of  affidavit. Despite that no notice was issued to the appellant/OP. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for 2-3 dates. Finally, ld. District Forum allowed the complaint by passing the impugned order.
6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed by appellant/OP.
7. It is contended by the ld. counsel for the appellant/OP that when the complaint was dismissed for non-appearance on 20.01.2011, in the presence of appellant/OP, the District Forum ought not have ordered to put up the matter on 25.03.2011.  It  is  stated that thereafter on the application of the respondent/complainant the matter was taken up on 11.04.2011 and application for restoration was allowed without notice to the appellant/OP as such the appellant/OP was not aware that the complaint had been restored and proceedings were going on. It is submitted that due to said reason, the appellant/OP could not appear before the Ld. District Forum. It is contended that the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant/OP.
8. Husband of the respondent/complainant has argued on her behalf and has contended that notice of restoration application was given to the appellant/OP.
9. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record as well as the record of the District Forum.
10. We have failed to understand when the complaint was dismissed for non-appearance on 20.01.2011, why the District Forum ordered for listing the matter on 25.03.2011. There are some cuttings in the date also. Then instead of 25.03.2011 the matter was taken on 15.03.2011.  Thereafter, no next date was given. Again the matter was taken up on 11.04.2011 on the restoration application of respondent/complainant which was allowed on the same date. On the said application no notice was issued to appellant/OP. When the matter was dismissed for non-appearance on 20.01.2011, in the presence of counsel for appellant/OP, the District Forum ought to have issued notice to appellant/OP. By not doing so, the Ld. District Forum has committed illegality.
11. Further, ld. counsel for the appellant/OP has pointed out that District Forum has no power to review its own order as per judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Anr. reported as IV (2011) CPJ 35 (SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in aforesaid judgment has held that “after the amendment in Section 22 and introduction of Section 22A in the Act in the year 2002 the power of review or recall has vested with the National Commission only”.
12. In the present case, District Forum committed illegality in restoring the complaint.
13. In view of the above discussion, we accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand back the case to the District Forum for deciding it afresh after giving opportunity to appellant/OP to contest the same in accordance with law.
14. Let parties appear before the District Forum on 10.08.2018. On the said date, appellant/OP shall file its evidence by way of affidavit, thereafter, the District Forum shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
15. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum. The record of the District Forum be sent forthwith. Thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal)

•  

 

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

Tri