Back
1993 Supreme(AP) 121
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : N.D.PATNAIK
Dealwell Engineering Works - Appellant
Versus
V.V.Choudary - Respondent
C.R.P.No.3082 of 1991
Decided On : 03-10-93
Advocates Appeared :
D. Rarnalingaswamy, S. Srinivasa Varma, Sri. P. Srinivasulu
Subject
Jurisdiction - Consumer Protection Act
Act Referred
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT : S.13, S.14, S.15
Headnote
High Court can issue prerogative writ, if an inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction or manifestly conducts the proceedings before it in a manner contrary to rules of natural justice, even if an appeal is provided against such order.
HELD: A combined reading of these provisions will indicate that the dispute under the Act covers the defect in the goods purchased or deficiency in the service rendered and complaint can be made for that. In the present case that though an order was passed for supply of certain goods, only one item was supplied, but not the rest of the items. But there is no allegation that even the item which was supplied is defective. Sec. 2(c) of the Act defines Complaint and Clause (ii) which is the relevant clause refers to the fact that the goods mentioned in the complaint suffer from one or more defects. In the absence of any such allegation, it does not come within the complaint as defined in Sec. 2(c) of the Act. Without there being a complaint as defined under the Act. The District Forum cannot entertain a consumer dispute. Therefore since there is no com. plaint as per the provisions of the Act, I agree with the contention that the Act has no application and the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer dispute and so the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside as totally lacking in jurisdiction.
( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed under article 227 of the Constitution against the order passed by the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act at Anantapur in C. D. No. 47 of 1991.
( 2 ) THE first respondent filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Anantapur, under the Consumer Protection Act, alleging that he had placed an order with the petitioner for supply of some packaging machinery and paid an amount of Rs. 29,000 by way of two demand drafts, but the petitioner did not supply the machinery and requested the District Forum to direct the petitioner either to supply the machinery or refund the advance paid by him together with compensation. The petitioner did not appear before the District Forum in spite of notice being given to it and, therefore, the consumer forum ordered the petitioner to refund the advance amount paid by the first respondent with interest, with an option to the petitioner to deliver the machinery at the old rate after collecting the price by deducting the advance paid by the first respondent and also ordered payment of Rs. 10,000 by way of compensation.
( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the dispute between the parties is purely regarding breach of contract which has to be adjudicated by a competent civil court and the Consumer Protection Act does not apply to the case and hence the District Forum ought not to have entertained the complaint since it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute and, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 1 contended that the petition filed under article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable for the reason that the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act is not a Tribunal subordinate to the High Court. His other contention is that the Consumer Protection Act provides an appeal to the State Commission against the decision of a District Forum under section 15 of the Act and from the decision of the State Commission an appeal is provided to the National Commission and against the decision of the National Commission an appeal is provided to the Supreme Court. Therefore, by necessary implication, the jurisdiction of the High Court under article 227 of the Constitution is ousted.
( 5 ) SINCE the questions involved in this revision petition are of general importance, I have requested Sri P. S. Narayana, advocate, to assist the court as amicus curiae and I am thankful to him for the valuable assistance rendered by him.
( 6 ) THE first question to be considered is whether a revision petition can be entertained by the High Court under article 227 of the Constitution against the decision of the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act. The District Forum is constituted under sections 9 and 10 of the Act. Section 11 of the Act deals with the jurisdiction of the District Forum. Section 12 deals with the manner in which the complaint shall be made. Section 13 deals with the procedure on receipt of the complaint. Section 14 deals with the finding of the District Forum. The procedure under the Act provides that notice shall be given to the opposite party and after hearing the opposite party, the District Forum can pass its orders. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 30 of the Act, the Government of Andhra Pradesh framed certain rules called the A. P. Consumers Protection Rules, 1987, which also deal with the procedure to be followed by the District Forum and also by the State Commission. Rule 4 deals with the procedure to be followed by the District Forum. A reading of the provisions of the Act and the Rules makes it clear that the District Forum on receipt of a complaint has to issue a notice to the opposite party and after hearing the objections of the opposite party decide the matter and, therefore, it performs adjudicatory functions.
( 7 ) IN Engineering Mazdoor Sabha v. Hind Cycles Ltd. , AIR 1963 SC 874, the Suprem
