ORDER NO. 2 DT. 14.12.10

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. P.K.SAMANTA, PRESIDENT

Revisionist is present through Mr. P.R.Bakshi, Ld. Advocate.  Heard him on restoration of this Revisional Application.  Order is passed as under :-

This is an application for restoration of the Revision Petition No. RC/115/2010, which was dismissed on the ground of default.  This Revisional Application has been preferred against the judgement and order dt. 30.6.10 as well as order nos. 12 to 18 passed on different dates starting from 4.6.09 till 30.6.10 by the Kolkata District Consumer Forum, Unit-I.  The aforesaid other orders were made during the pendency of the proceeding before the Forum below.  By the aforesaid order dt. 30.6.10 the complaint case has been finally disposed of by directing the OP No. 3 to refund Rs. 6574/- being the fare of Indigo Flight from Kolkata to Mumbai with the clear and specific observation that the complaint case has thus been disposed of by the Forum below.  Having regard to the facts and circumstances as stated in the restoration application we are satisfied that the Revisional Petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing on the date when the same was dismissed for default.  The restoration application is thus allowed.

In presence of the Ld. Advocate for the Revisional Petitioner the above Revisional Application is taken up for disposal on the preliminary question as to the maintainability of the same against the aforesaid final order of disposal of the complaint case.  It has been strongly argued by Mr. P.R.Bakshi, Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist, that since the Revisional Application has been preferred also against the other orders as above so made by the District Forum before final disposal of the complaint case by order dt. 30.6.10, the same is very much maintainable.  We are unable to accept such contention.  Because upon final disposal of the aforesaid complaint case the above orders thus made prior to disposal of the aforesaid complaint case lost its force upon disposal of the complaint or in other words, stood merged with the final order.  If there be any illegality and/or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the District Forum below in making of such other orders prior to the making of the final order, then such orders could have been challenged in support of an appeal that would have been preferred against the final order made in the complaint case.  Therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that because of the illegality of such other orders so made prior to the final disposal of the complaint case this Revisional Application would be maintainable against the same. 

Next, it has been urged that if any final order is made in exercise of wrongful jurisdiction by the Forum below, then such final order could also be challenged in a Revisional Application instead of filing an appeal against the same.  We also do not agree to the proposition so made on behalf of the Revisional Petitioner.  Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is very much clear that an order made by the District Forum, which is in the shape of a final order, should be challenged in an appeal before the State Commission.  Upon reference to Section 17(1)(b) It has been strongly contended that the provisions thereof empowers the State Commission to exercise revisional jurisdiction against any order including final order which may have been passed by the District Forum in illegal exercise of jurisdiction, or with material irregularity or where there was failure to exercise jurisdiction so vested in it.  It has thus been contended that the said provisions imply that the State Commission has the power to exercise revisional jurisdiction in such circumstances even in respect of a final order passed in a complaint case.  Even assuming that such revisional power has been vested to the State Commission by the aforesaid provisions, then also for the purpose of avoiding confusion and multiplicity of proceeding it should be read that such power should necessarily be exercised in respect of those orders only against which no appeal has been provided in the statute.  Because revisional power is not an inherent power.  It has to be statutorily provided.  There is no specific provision in the statute conferring revisional power upon the State Commission for the purpose of revising any order made by the District Fora. Again if we take it for granted that by implication such power can be inferred for the purpose of revising an order made in wrongful exercise of jurisdiction, then also such power cannot be exercised in any event in respect of orders for which statute has specifically provided appeal.  Under any circumstances upon reading of the aforesaid provisions it cannot be said that these provisions permit both appeal and revision at the same time against an order. Upon reading of both the sections namely 15 and 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 we are on the contrary of the clear view that Consumer Protection Act does not intend to make any room for exercising revisional jurisdiction by the State Commission in respect of an order against whom an appeal lies U/S 15. 

For all the reasons as aforesaid we hold that this Revisional Application against the final order dt. 30.6.10 made by disposing of the complaint case is not maintainable.  Hence, the same is dismissed.  Since it has been held that the Revisional Application is not maintainable and the appeal lies against the impugned order, the Revisional Petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the said order in an appeal U/S 15 of the Consumer Protection Act if such an appeal is filed within a period of 30 days from date. In such evident, the question of limitation if there be any in filing the appeal shall be considered favourably.