Back
THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal President;
Miss S. Brar & Dr. A.N. Saxena, Members
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD.—Appellant
versus
BRIJ BHUSHAN GUPTA—Respondent
A-552 of 1993—Decided on 3.1.1994
For the Appellant :Mr. S. Pattjoshi & Mr. Mishra, Advocates.
For the Respondent: In person.
Interim relief under the Consumer Protection Act cannot be granted.
Headnote:
Interim Relief - Consumer Protection Act - The court accepted the revision petition and set aside the interim order directing the appellant to restore the telephone upon depositing 25% of the bill amount, based on previous observations by the National Commission that interim relief under the Consumer Protection Act cannot be granted.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petition was filed against an interim order directing the appellant to restore the telephone upon depositing 25% of the bill amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court accepted the revision petition, set aside the order of the District Forum, and directed the parties to complete the pleadings and evidence for disposal of the case on the next hearing date.
Issues: Interim relief under the Consumer Protection Act
Ratio Decidendi: Observations by the National Commission that interim relief under the Consumer Protection Act cannot be granted influenced the court's decision to set aside the interim order.
Final Decision: Revision accepted, order of the District Forum set aside, and parties directed to complete pleadings and evidence for disposal of the case on the next hearing date.
Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President—This revision petition has been filed against the interim order dated 11-11-93 directing the appellant (Opposite Party) to restore the telephone, in case, the complainant (respondent) deposits 25% of the amount of the bill. The National Commission has held in AK Virmani v. D.E.S.U. (Revision Petition No. 606/93 in O.P. No. 284 of 1993 decided on 1st October, 1993) that the prayer for interim relief under the Consumer Protection Act can not be granted. Similar observations have been made by the National Commission in M.C.D. (D.E.S.U.) v. Mohinder Singh Verma (Revision Petition No. 498 of 1993 decided on 19-10-93).
2. In view of the above said observations we accept the revision petition and set-aside the order of the District Forum. The parties are directed to complete the pledings and evidence etc. before the next date, so that the case may be disposed of on that date. If the parties complete the pleadings etc. it will be appropriate that the case be disposed of on the next date of hearing.
Revision accepted.
____
