Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President; Smt. Basanti Devi,
Member; S. Kulwant Singh, Member
A.P.J. SCHOOL, FARIDABAD—Petitioner/O-P.
versus
M.K. MALHOTRA AND ORS.—Respondents/Complainants
Revision Petition Nos. 2, 3 & 4 of 1992 — Decided on 3.11.1992
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions have the power to transfer a complaint from one District Forum to another or to themselves in cases where the District Forum has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - TRANSFER OF COMPLAINT - POWER OF STATE COMMISSION - ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION - BIAS OF DISTRICT FORUM MEMBER - TRANSFER OF COMPLAINT TO ANOTHER DISTRICT FORUM OR TO STATE COMMISSION - PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a school, filed a revision petition seeking the transfer of a consumer complaint pending before the District Forum, Faridabad, to another District Forum or to the State Commission. The petitioner alleged that one of the members of the District Forum, Professor C.D. Verma, was biased against the school and had made unwarranted requests for admission of certain children who were closely related to him. The petitioner also alleged that Professor Verma had incited people to file complaints against the school to settle his personal score.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission held that it had the power to transfer a complaint from one District Forum to another or to itself in cases where the District Forum had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. However, the Commission found that none of these conditions were satisfied in the present case.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions have the power to transfer a complaint from one District Forum to another or to themselves? 2. Whether the facts of the case warranted the transfer of the complaint from the District Forum, Faridabad, to another District Forum or to the State Commission?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power to transfer a complaint from one District Forum to another or to the State Commission is not expressly provided in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, or the rules framed thereunder. However, the National Commission and the State Commissions have been vested with administrative jurisdiction over the District Forums by the Supreme Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1141 of 1988 and No. 742 of 1990, Common Cause a Registered Society v. Union of India & Ors. 2. The facts of the case did not warrant the transfer of the complaint from the District Forum, Faridabad, to another District Forum or to the State Commission. The mere fact that one of the members of the District Forum had earlier taken a considered view against the petitioner in a similar case was not sufficient to establish bias. Additionally, the letter written by the member to the Principal of the school was not conclusive on the point of bias.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President — Whether the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions have the power to transfer a complaint from one District Forum to another or to themselves, is the solitary though very significant issue in this set of three revision petitions.
2. In view of the pristinely legal question aforesaid the facts would pale into relative insignificance. Nevertheless to provide the necessary terrafirma these may be noticed from revision petition No. 2 of 1992, A.P.J. School v. M.K. Malhotra. It is averred on behalf of the petitioner-school that the respondent has filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum at Faridabad and Professor C.D. Verma is one of members of the said Forum. It is alleged that Shri Verma had made unwarranted requests to the Principal of the School for admission of certain children who were closely related to him and these being declined by the Principal he had become acutely annoyed thereby and threatened the Principal with adverse action through the District Forum. It was even alleged that the aforesaid member had incited the people to file complaints against the petitioner-school to settle his personal score and in one of such cases, namely Shri K.L. Galhotra v. A.P.J. School, he alongwith another Member had granted unwarranted relief against the petitioner whilst the President of the District Forum had forcefully dissented therefrom (vide Annexures P.2 & P.3). Firm reliance is placed on Annexure P.I alleged to have been written by Professor Verma to the Principal of the School informing him that his son-in-law was coming to meet him and suggesting that he be given a patient hearing and his work be done.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it is stated that the petitioner has genuine fears that they will not get due justice from the District Forum, Faridabad and it is essential that the matter in dispute may not be heard by a body of which Professor C.D. Verma is a member. Consequently, it is prayed that the consumer dispute pending before the District Forum be transferred to any other District Forum for a fair trial.
4. Before adverting to the merits, it may be noticed that at the very threshold the attention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was drawn to II (1991) CPJ 335, Girraj Prasad Tikkiwal v. Ram Deo Saini & Ors., wherein the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur has observed that in the absence of any provision in the Act about the transfer or withdrawal of a complaint pending before the District Forum a complaint cannot be so transferred or withdrawn. In view of this, full dress arguments on the threshold question of the very power of the State Commission to transfer cases have been heard.
5. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, the learned Counsel for the petitioners had first placed reliance on clause (b) of Section 17 of the Act in his support. It was contended that the wide-ranging revisional power conferred thereby would include within its ambit a power to transfer a complaint from one District Forum to another. Though no precedent could be cited, it was suggested that the language of the provision could with elasticity be stretched to imply such a power.
6. To appraise the aforesaid submission, one must inevitably resort somewhat closely to the language of clause (b) aforesaid which may be noticed in extenso at the very outset;•
“17. Jurisdiction of the State Commission: Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction,-
xx xx xx xx xx
(b) 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 it appears to the State Commission that such District. Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”
7. It needs no great erudition to notice that t
