Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shri S.K.M. Lodha, President;
Mr. Damodar Thanvi, and Mrs. Saria Khan, Members.
JAIPUR STOCK EXCHANGE LIMITED, JAIPUR—Appellant
versus
C.P.MEHTA, ORGANISER, SMALL INVESTORS
PROTECTION FRONT JAIPUR AND OTHERS—Respondents
Appeal No. 2 of 1989—Decided on 29.3.1989
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Mr. U.N. Bhandari, Mr. M.R. Singhvi, Mr. L.L. Jain.
For the Respondents 1 to 4: Mr. Prem Surana.
The District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and try complaints under the Act. However, if the District Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint, the State Commission can call for the records and pass appropriate orders in the matter. An interim order passed by the District Forum without jurisdiction is liable to revision.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - JURISDICTION - SECTION 12, 14, 15, 17(B) - STOCK EXCHANGE - RECOGNITION - SECTION 2(I), 3, 4 - CONSUMER - SECTION 2(1)(D) - SERVICE - SECTION 2(1)(O) - COMPLAINT - SECTION 2(1)(O) - COMPLAINANT - SECTION 2(1)(B) - INTERIM ORDER - JURISDICTION - PRIMA FACIE CASE - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - IRREPARABLE INJURY - INTEREST OF JUSTICE - MATERIAL IRREGULARITY - STATUS QUO - APPEAL - MAINTAINABILITY - REVISION - SECTION 115(1) C.P.C. - SUMMARY - The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986) (the Act) provides for the protection of the interests of consumers and for the establishment of consumer courts for the speedy and effective redressal of consumer disputes. The Act defines a consumer as a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration. A complaint under the Act can be filed by a consumer against a trader or service provider for any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service. The District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and try complaints under the Act. However, if the District Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint, the State Commission can call for the records and pass appropriate orders in the matter. An interim order passed by the District Forum without jurisdiction is liable to revision. The District Forum should consider the questions of prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and the interest of justice before passing an interim order.
Fact of the Case:
The complainants filed a complaint against the appellant, a stock exchange, alleging that it had not been recognized by the Central Government and that it had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. The District Forum passed an interim order directing the appellant to maintain the status quo as it existed on the date of the order.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission held that the District Forum had not applied its mind to the various provisions of the Act of 1956 as well as of the Act before passing the interim order. It also held that the District Forum had not considered the questions of prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and the interest of justice before passing the interim order. The State Commission further held that the District Forum had exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity.
Issues: 1. Whether the District Forum had jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. 2. Whether the District Forum had considered the questions of prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and the interest of justice before passing the interim order. 3. Whether the District Forum had exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and try complaints under the Act. However, if the District Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint, the State Commission can call for the records and pass appropriate orders in the matter. 2. An interim order passed by the District Forum without jurisdiction is liable to revision. 3. The District Forum should consider the questions of prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and the interest of justice before passing an interim order.
Final Decision: The State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the interim order passed by the District Forum. It directed the District Forum to decide the question of jurisdiction after getting the replies of all the opposite parties.
Mr. Justice S.K.M. Lodha, President—By this appeal under S. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986) (“the Act” therein). Opposite-Party No. 1 - appellant questions the legality and correctness of the order dated 21.2.1989, passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 25 of 1989.
2. Respondents No. 1 to 4 are complainants. The appellant is opposite party No. 1 in the complaint. The names of respondents No. 5 to 11 were deleted as the appellant submitted an application on 17.3.1989 that they are not necessary parties. Respondents No. 1 to 4 and the appellant will be referred to as “the complainants-opposite party No. 1” respectively in this appeal.
3. The complainants filed a complaint dated 17.2.1989 purporting to be under S. 12 of the Act against opposite party No. 1 and seven others before the District Forum, Jaipur for various reliefs mentioned in the last para of the complaint. Along with it, some documents were filed. On 21.2.1989, the District Forum, Jaipur passed the order under appeal. It will be useful to read the material part of it, which reads as under :—
“On behalf of non-petitioner No. 1, and objection of the jurisdiction of the Forum has been raised which has to be decided on receiving the reply of the State Government Meanwhile the status quo as it exists today shall be maintained by the non-petitioner No. 1. In any case the status quo will have to be maintained till the State Government replies and about jurisdiction the arguments will be heard on the next date of hearing. Put up for arguments and reply on 27.2.89”.
4. Aggrieved by this order, the appeal has been filed by the appellant-opposite party No. 1 challenging the above mentioned order.
5. We have heard Mr. U.N. Bhandari, assisted by Mr. M.R. Singhvi and Mr. L.L. Jain, Advocates for the appellant and Mr. Prem Surana, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4 (complainants) on March 17,1989. We also directed the learned Counsel, if they so like, to give the written submissions in support of the respective contentions in the appeal latest by 18.3.1989 at 10.30 A.M. after exchanging the written submissions in support of the respective contentions. In the light of the argument and written submissions, we have considered the record of the case and in particular the complaint and the documents accompanying it and the application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. raising preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint. Opposite party No. 1 has also filed its version of the case before the District Forum along with the documents.
6. Mr. Prem Surana, learned Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 (complainants) has raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is not maintainable for the reason that S.15 of the Act provides for appeal before the State Commission against the order of District Forum passed under S. 14 of the Act and as no order has been passed under S.14 of the Act by the District Forum, appeal against the interlocutory order is not maintainable. He also submitted that point regarding jurisdiction is for the consideration of the District Forum and so at this stage the question of jurisdiction should not be determined. It is correct that the District Forum has not passed any order under S. 14 of the Act as proceedings under S. 13 of the Act hays not been concluded as yet. S. 15 of the Apt lays down that any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of order. S. 15 of the Act is conspicuously silent as there is no reference to the order made by the District Forum under 14 of the Act. We do not consider it necessary to make a probe in the matter for the reason that under S, 17 (b) of the Act the State Commission has jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State, where i
