The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a forum to have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint and the proper application of penalty provisions under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Mr. M.L. Tiwari, Member—Appellant Chief Engineer, M.P.E.B., Bhopal and two others being aggrieved by the order passed by District Forum, Sihore in case No.3/93 by which the District Forum has ordered for payment of Rs.1000/- as damages, Rs.250/- as cost and in case within one moth sum is not paid under Section 27, Rs. 300/- will be imposed as penalty.

The points for determination in this appeal are—

(i) Whether the order passed by District Forum, Sihore is illegal and void?

(ii) Whether the Form has followed the procedure laid down by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?

2. Reasons with finding on both the points— We have perused the record of the lower Court. Section 13 of the Act is about the procedure on receipt of the complaint. The complaint was received by the Forum on 20.1.93. The next date fixed was 27.2.93. On that date the nonapplicants appellants appeared before the Forum through Advocate and prayed for time to file reply, and then the Forum was pleased to fix the case for 18.3.93.

3. On 18.3.93 the non-applicant appellant prayed for time to file reply. The case was fixed for 30.3.93. On that date the complainant filed an amendment application changing the relief claimed Rs. 1,10,000/- into Rs. 95,000/-. The question is when the original complaint suffered from want of jurisdiction, On that date the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain complaint where the value or the service of the goods or the compensation, if any, claimed is less than Rs. 1,00,000/-. Of course after the amendment in the Act by the Act of 1993. The pecuniary jurisdiction has been increased upto Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lakhs) But on the material date i.e. 30.3.93 that Forum could not have heard the complaint where the relief claimed was Rs. 1,10,000/-. The peculiar order passed by the District Forum cannot be upheld. How the Forum incompetent to entertain a complaint can pass an order by which that Court by an amendment brings the complaint in its jurisdiction. This should not have been done. The matter is different when the complaint is within pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum and some amendment is sought. Here is a case wherein ab-initio that Forum had no jurisdiction. That order of amendment is bad in law.

4. The matter doe not end here. The case was fixed for reply under section 13 of the Act for giving a version by the non-applicant appellant. Without caring a little for the reply of the opposite party the Forum after allowing that amendment starts writing the impugned order. That shows that no opportunity was given to the non-applicant appellant to plead version of the case. The Forum has also observed that regular electricity was being supplied to the complainant. Yet that Forum without giving reasons for awarding Rs. 1,000/- compensation simply on conjecture has passed that order.

5. We further find that while awarding compensation in the main order itself there is an observation and direction by the District Forum that in case within one month the order is not complied with the appellant non-applicant shall pay Rs.300/- as penalty under Section 27. That direction is against the legal provision. Such an order cannot be passed in law. There are two Sections 25 and 27, they relate to execution of the order passed. Section 27 deals with penalties and Section 25 is about enforcement of the orders by the Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission. The provisions of Section 27 can be invoked only when a person against whom a complaint is made fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be. That shows that the condition precedent for payments under Section 27 is failure or omission to comply with the order passed by the Forum. Thus the order passed by the District Forum suffers from so many legal infirmities and as such the order cannot be upheld.

6. In result the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum, Sehore is set-aside. Th