Back
High Court of Calcutta
Mitra, J.
State Transport Authority – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Decided On : Jun 10, 1991
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - JURISDICTION - DISTRICT FORUM AND STATE COMMISSION - COMPOSITION - INTERIM ORDER - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - PERMIT - GRANT - JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNALS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the orders of the President, Calcutta District Forum, and the President, State Commission, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the grounds of jurisdiction and legality.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the District Forum and the State Commission lacked initial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the appeal filed by the opposite party, as he was not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The composition of both tribunals was also found to be illegal, being violative of the provisions of Sections 10 and 16 of the Act, respectively. Further, the tribunals did not have the power to pass interim orders, as they were not vested with such power under the Act and were not civil courts to enjoy inherent powers under the Code of Civil Procedure. The court also held that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, could not be encroached upon by the Consumer Protection Act, and the tribunals had exceeded their jurisdiction by passing orders allowing the opposite party to ply his bus on the disputed route in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the District Forum and the State Commission had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the appeal filed by the opposite party. 2. Whether the composition of the District Forum and the State Commission was legal. 3. Whether the tribunals had the power to pass interim orders. 4. Whether the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, could be encroached upon by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, does not include a person who obtains goods for commercial purposes. The opposite party, who sought a stage carriage permit for commercial purposes, could not be considered a consumer under the Act. 2. The composition of the District Forum and the State Commission, as per Sections 10 and 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, respectively, must include a President and two or three other members. The tribunals, consisting only of the President, were not properly constituted. 3. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, does not confer the power to pass interim orders on the District Forum or the State Commission. These tribunals are not civil courts and cannot exercise inherent powers under the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is a complete code in itself, providing specific procedures for obtaining route permits and remedies for refusals. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act cannot override or derogate from the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Final Decision: The revisional application was allowed, and the impugned orders of the District Forum and the State Commission were set aside. The complaint and the appeal were also held to be not maintainable in law. The court directed the R.T.A. concerned to decide the opposite party's application for a permit at an early date and make arrangements for the operation of the disputed route to avoid public inconvenience.
1. IN this Revisional Application the petitioners have challenged, inter alia, the order dated 26th March, 1991 passed by the president, Calcutta District Forum under the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 in C. D. F. Case No. 2045 of 1991 and also the order dated 5th April, 1991, passed by the President, State Commission, under the said Act, in SC Case NO,. 255 of 1991, inter alia, on the ground of jurisdiction of both the aforesaid tribuals in passing the respective orders.
2. THE case as made out by the petitioners in the Re visional application inter alia, is that the opposite party no. 1 lodged a complaint before the president, Calcutta District Forum under the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 giving rise to CDF Case No. 2045 of 1991 inter alia, for the following reliefs : -
(a) To pass an order directing the writ petitioners to show case as to why they should not be directed to grant permit to the opposite party No. 1 on the route - Calcutta to Jalpaiguri via. Barasat, Beharanpur, (Malda, Raignj and Siliguri, having Long Route Conductor licence), under Section 30 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988;
(b) After hearing both the parties to direct the writ petit Loners to grant permit to the opposite party no. 1 on the same route and also for an interim order directing the writ petitioners to grant and/or issue an interim permit to the opposite party no. 1 on the said route and grant a leave to the opposite party no. 1 to ply a bus on the said route without any interference.
It was also contended by the opposite party no. 1 in the said complaint that he had a long Route Conductor Licence and having come to know that the State Transport Authority Mould grant permit on the aforesaid route, submitted an application for grant of temporary permit for the said route on 17th August, 1989, but since then his said application has not been considered by the authority concerned. It appears from the orders annexed to the Revisional application, that the president, Calcutta District Forum, on 26th March, 1991 not only directed to issue show cause notices upon the writ petitioners, but at the same time also passed an interim order allowing the opposite party no. 1 to ply his bus on the aforesaid route without any interference till the grant of permit on the same route. Although the said order was in favour of the opposite party no. 1, the opposite party no. 1, however," for reasons best known to him, preferred an appeal before the president, state Commission being s. C. Case No. 256 of 1991, in which the President, State Commission on 5th April, 1991, after admitting the appeal and directing to issue notice upon the respondents therein i. e., the writ petitioners, passed an interim order allowing the opposite party no. 1 to ply his bus on the aforesaid route without any interference till the grant of permit on the said route and the police and the other concerned authorities were also directed not to create any problem in the matter of smooth running of the bus by the opposite party no. 1 on the aforesaid route.
3. IT is contended by Mr. Sett, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, with Mr. Bhattacharjee, that both the President, Calcutta District Forum and the President, State Commission had lacked initial, jurisdiction to entertain the complaint lodged by the opposite party no. 1 as well as the appeal filed by the opposite party no. 1 and the impugned orders which have been challenged in time present Revisional Application are thus nullities, inter alia, on the grounds that the opposite party no. 1 not being a consumer within the meaning as given in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1985, has no right do lodge a complaint before the Calcutta District Forun as per the provisions of the said Act, in as much only a consumer under the said Act, can lodge a complaint before the appropriate forum under the said act, for getting relif as provided under Section 14 of the said Act: since the composition of the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
