IMPORTANT POINT
Consumer Forum has to guard itself from touts and busy bodies in garb of power of attorney holders or authorized agents in proceedings before it

Vineeta Rai, Member— The present revision petition has been filed by Shri Ram Govind Sharma (hereinafter referred to as ‘Petitioner’) against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand, which had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

2. The brief facts of the case according to the Petitioner is that one Sitaram Poddar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Respondent’) was running a scheme in the name of Subhash Auto, and there were about 5000 members who joined the scheme. Under this scheme each member was required to deposit Rs. 200/- every month for 31 months from the date of commencement of the scheme. In this way, each member would have to deposit Rs. 6200/- to the scheme. Every month, two members were selected through lottery and were given motorcycles. As per the conditions of the scheme, at the end of the scheme i.e. after 31 months those members who were not successful in the lottery would be returned their money after deducting Rs. 600/-. According to the Petitioner, after completion of the scheme, the Respondent did not return the money to the members as per the conditions of the scheme. The Petitioner therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum.

3. Before the District Forum, the Petitioner had appointed one Kamal Kishore Sharma to plead the case on his behalf. No affidavit was filed before the District Forum as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 nor was any credible evidence led before the for a in support of the Petitioner/ Complainant’s contention.

4. According to the District Forum, the Petitioner’s representative continued to make irrelevant submissions and appeared to be a “quarrelsome” person. The District Forum therefore, dismissed the complaint with the following observations:

“The complainant is absent. OP Lawyer filed Hazri on behalf of OP. Perused the record. I find complaint petitioner and reply thereto by the OP on record. Complainant had not filed any affidavit in support of his case till date, as required by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On the other hand, the complainant brought one man namely Kamal Kishore Sharma, a quarrelsome man, always trying to irritate the forum by making irrelevant submissions, which is apparent from the record of the instant case.

Consequently, there being no evidence on affidavit on behalf of the complainant, this case stands dismissed. The complainant, having wasted much of the time of this Forum and also that of the OP is liable to bear penal cost of Rs. 1000/- payable to OP within a month failing which OP may initiate penal provision under Section 27 of the C.P. Act for realization of cost amount as well as penalty provided under the above act. This case is accordingly dismissed awarded litigation cost in favour of OP”.

5. Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission after giving three opportunities to the Petitioner dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

6. The present revision petition has been filed against the order of the State Commission dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. There is also a delay of 114 days in filing the revision petition.

7. Shri Kamal Kishore Sharma again appeared before this Commission on behalf of Petitioner on 01.02.2007. At that time, the then Member of this Commission who heard the revision petition recorded as follows:

“Shri Sharma stated to be authorized Power of Attorney holder of the complainant/ revision petitioner. Shri Ram Govind Sharma is present. He seeks time to file application for condonation of delay and also produce all the documents which were relied upon by the Fora below. The case was thereafter adjourned for 3rd April 2007 for admission”.

8. On 03.04.2007 Shri Kamal Kishore Sharma appeared and submitted before this Commission that the condonation application and the documents to be filed were ready and that he would be filing them during the course of the day. The case was therefore listed for admi