Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Dewan, President
& Mrs. Laxmi Kanta Chawla, Member
TARSEM LAL GOYAL—Complainant/Appellant
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.—Respondents/O.Ps.
F.A. No. 16 of 1992—Decided on 22.6.1992
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant : In person.
For the Respondents:Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate.
No appeal lies under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the dismissal of a petition under Section 27 of the Act.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 15, 17(B), 25, 27 - APPEAL - CONTEMPT - JURISDICTION - REVISION - TELEPHONE CONNECTION - RESTORATION - DELAY - PENALTY - ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS - EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS - NO APPEAL LIES UNDER SECTION 15 AGAINST DISMISSAL OF PETITION UNDER SECTION 27 - REVISION PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Bathinda, alleging that the opposite parties (Telephone Department) had not complied with the Forum's orders to restore his telephone connection and to provide him with a bill for the month of September 1991. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, finding that no case of contempt was made out against the opposite parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that no appeal lies under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the dismissal of a petition under Section 27 of the Act. The court also held that the revision petition filed by the complainant was not maintainable as there was no error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in the impugned order of the District Forum.
Issues: 1. Whether an appeal lies under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the dismissal of a petition under Section 27 of the Act? 2. Whether the revision petition filed by the complainant is maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not envisage an appeal against the imposition of penalty by Section 27 of the Act. 2. The power of the State Commission in exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 17(b) of the Act is strictly restricted to the question of jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed.
Mr. Justice S.S. Dewan, President—Aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.1991 passed by the District Forum, Bathinda, in Complaint No. 228 of 1991 under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the “Act’), the complainant has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Act. Perhaps at the outset it may be mentioned that we are somewhat seeptical whether the present appeal would at all lie under Section 15 of the Act against the dismissal of a petition under Section 27 of the Act?
2. The facts giving rise to the aforesaid issue lie in a narrow compass. During the course of hearing in complaints No. 51 and 178 of 1991 filed by the complainant, the District Forum, Bathinda, passed the following two ad interim orders on 16.10.1991 : —
“Copy of the application has been given to the opposite party, who is directed to bring the bill of the telephone of the complainant for the month of September 1991 in this Court on 30.10.1991. “
“Issue notice to the opposite party for 10.12.1991. The respondents are directed to restore telephone connection of the complainant provided he has paid bills of the telephone.”
3. The complainant filed a complaint on 30.11.1991 before the District Forum, Bathinda, praying that the opposite parties be punished for contempt under Section 27 of the Act for not complying with the afore-mentioned orders of the Forum meticulously inter alia on the grounds (1) that the Department had issued a duplicate bill for Rs. 305/-, but that included Rs. 100/- as reconnection fee for the telephone and (2) that he (complainant) made the payment of the bills on 2.11.1991, whereas the telephone connection was given to him on 19.11.1991, and thus there was an inordinate delay on the part of the Telephone Department in restoring his telephone connection. The District Forum after hearing the parties’ Counsel found that no case of contempt was made out against the opposite parties, and dismissed the complaint on that score. Hence the appeal.
4. Sh. T.L. Goyal relying on the provision of Section 15 of the Act, contended that this provision envisages an appeal by any person who is aggrieved by the order of the District Forum under Section 27 of the Act. This question does not seem to be free from difficulty. The matter is, however, not res integra. Reference in this connnection may well be made to the order of the Haryana State Commission in Kohinooor Carpets, Panipat & Others v. Mr. Rajinder Arora, II (1991) CPJ 429, where in after an exhaustive discussion on principle and precedent, it has been observed as under : —
“That Section 27, with its heading of ‘Penalties’ appears long after Section 15 and at the fag end of the statute. It is followed only by Chapter IV, containing miscellaneous provisions under Section 28 to 31. Contextually it deserves highlighting that the consistent scheme of the Act is that the right of appeal against the orders of all the three redressal forums constituted by the Act immediately follows the provisions pertaining to the procedure and jurisdiction thereof. This is the identical situation in the three distinct Sections, namely, Sections 15, 19 and 23, which separately confer the appellate power against the substitutive orders of the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission, respectively. Viewed in this light and in the context of the scheme of the statute, it would seem somewhat incongruous that the earlier Section 15 would envisage an appeal against the imposition of penalty by Section 27, which is considerably subsequent thereto.
The scheme for enforcement of the orders of the three redressal agencies under the Act has then to be viewed in a larger perspective. This necessarily involves the correlating of Sections 25 and 27 of the Act. Both these provisions are directed towards the speedy enforcement of the orders of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be To put it tersely, both Sections 25 and 27 are in the nature of t
