Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA
Honble Mr. Justice P.N. Nag, President;
Mr. I.D. Bali & Mrs. Krishana Tandon, Members
TELECOM DISTRICT ENGINEER & ORS.—Appellants
versus
BHUSHAN DEWAN—Respondent
Appeal No. 186 of 1997—Decided on 19.3.1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants :Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. Seema Sood, Advocate.
An appeal must be accompanied by a certified copy of the order of the lower forum, as required by the relevant rules, to be considered validly presented.
Headnote:
Appeal - Consumer Protection - Validity of Appeal Without Certified Copy of Order
Fact of the Case:
The Telephone Department appealed against the District Forum's order setting aside a demand bill and ordering compensation and re-connection of telephone. The appeal was not accompanied by a certified copy of the order of the District Forum.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeal was defective, incompetent, and not validly presented due to the absence of a certified copy of the order, as required by Rule 22(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1988.
Issues: The main issue was whether an appeal without a certified copy of the order of the District Forum can be considered as competent and valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Rule 22(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1988, which clearly provides that a Memorandum of Appeal is not validly presented unless accompanied by a certified copy of the order. The court also cited the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari & Others, AIR 1969 SC 575, which held a similar requirement under Order 41, Rule 1, CPC.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal due to its defective and incompetent nature, as it was not accompanied by a certified copy of the order of the District Forum.
Mr. Justice P.N. Nag, President—This appeal has been filed by the Telephone Department (hereinafter to be referred to as the appellants) against the order of the District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, dated 1.7.1997.
2. The District Forum has set aside the demand bill of Rs. 95,844/- of the appellants against the respondent (hereinafter to be referred to as the complainant and has ordered for the payment of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- within a period of two months from the date of order, failing which, the complainant has been held entitled for interest @ 12% per annum till the amount is actually paid. The appellants have been further ordered to re-connect the telephone without re-connection charges immediately.
3. At the time of hearing, it was noticed that the appellants have not furnished along with the Memorandum of Appeal, a certified copy of the order of the District Forum. The question that requires consideration is whether the Memorandum of Appeal presented by the appellants not accompanied by a certified copy of the order of the District Forum can be considered as competent and valid appeal.
4. The procedure for hearing the appeal has been prescribed under Rule 22(3) of "Himachal Pradesh Consumer Protection Rules, 1988" framed under Sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Rule 22(3) clearly provides that:
"Each memorandum shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the order of the District Forum appealed against and such of the documents as may be required to support grounds of objection mentioned in the memorandum".
The rule, in fact, provides that Memorandum of Appeal is not validly presented unless it is accompanied by certified copy of the order.
5. Since the Memorandum of Appeal is not accompanied by a certified copy of the order, in our opinion, the appeal was defective, incompetent and has not been validly presented.
6. The Supreme Court in Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari & Others, AIR 1969 SC 575, in similar circumstances, while interpreting Order 41, Rule 1, CPC, has held that the Memorandum of Appeal is not validly presented, unless it is accompanied by certified copies of the decree and judgment.
7. In view of this authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, there is no alternative left with us except to hold that since the Memorandum of Appeal was not accompanied by a certified copy of the order of the District Forum, the appeal is defective incompetent and as such requires to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
_
