Back
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI
S.B. Mhase, President; S.R. Khanzode Judicial Member and Narendra Kawde, Member
S.R. Kanojia Division Manager MTNL Gokuldham Telephone Exchange —Appellant
versus
Ramesh K. Panchal —Respondent
First Appeal No. A/12/35
Decided on 16.10.2012
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. G.D. Talreja, Advocate.
For the Respondent: In person.
IMPORTANT POINT
State Commission and District Forum do not have a power to review, recall or set aside orders passed by Consumer Fora.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15 and 17—Consumer complaint—Speedy disposal—Main object of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is to have speedy and expeditious disposal of complaint/appeal—Law requires that if complaint is not disposed of within specified time limit Consumer Fora are accountable and there shall be reasons for delayed disposal of matter—Legal obligation is to file compilation for service to other side along with complaint or appeal—However, practice is developed of submitting compilation for service after admission—This deviation from rule has resulted into protraction or prolongation of proceeding. (Paras 7, 9 to 15)
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15 and 17—Review—State Commission and District Forum do not have a power to review, recall or set aside orders passed by Consumer Fora—Such power is only available to National Commission—There is no inherent power with Consumer Fora—Consumer Fora is a creature of law and unless Act, Rules and Regulations bestow particular power on Consumer Fora, power cannot be exercised by Consumer Fora. (Para 8)
S.B. Mhase, President—Heard G. D. Talreja Advocate for the appellant and respondent in person.
2. This is an appeal filed by one Mr. S. R. Kanojia, Divisional Engineer, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Mumbai challenging the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban, in consumer complaint No. 239/2009 decided on 11.10.2011. By this order, the appellant has been directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000 and by way of costs of the litigation Rs.5,000. It is further directed that from the date of receipt of the order within 8 weeks the order shall be complied with, otherwise, the appellant shall pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of compensation. This order was challenged by filing this appeal on 29.11.2011. The appeal was listed for admission on 25.1.2012. On that date Mr. Piyush Ranjan Advocate appeared for the appellant. Though the name of Mr. Piyush Ranjan Advocate appears in the vakalatnama, however, said vakalatnama has not been signed by Advocate Piyush Ranjan. There are also names of Mr. Haresh Motwani, Mr. Jayant Chandnani, Mr. R.K. Tambe, Ms. Sejal Kulkarni on the said vakalatnama. However, these advocates have not signed the vakalatnama. Vakalatnama has been signed by Mr. G. D. Talreja, Mr. Vinod Talreja, Mr. Nitin Jadhav and Ms. Sarika Sawant. We have mentioned because the advocate who appeared on 25.1.2012 was not an advocate for the appellant. He has also not produced on record authority letter from the advocates on record. However, in spite of that on his oral request an adjournment was granted and the appeal was adjourned to 9.5.2012.
3. On 9.5.2012, Advocate Vinod Talreja who is on record appeared before the State Commission and after hearing him, appeal was admitted. Not only that the Bench which heard the matter on that date being aware of the fact that the issue of jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum is pending before the larger bench of this Commission, observed that the matter will have to be listed along with that matter. However, since respondent is required to be served after admission of the matter, bench directed to “issue notice after admission to the Respondent by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due only through Commission at the costs of appellant to 9.10.2012. Appellant shall make compliance seven days from today. On the same day application Exhibit 6 by which the appellant was seeking stay to the execution of the order was also heard by the State Commission and the conditional order was passed.
4. In. view of this order, it was necessary for the appellant submit necessary compilation to the office of the State Commission within a period of 7 days, so that the State Commission can send the regular notice to the respondent. However, office endorsement shows that the appellants have not submitted the necessary compilation and, therefore, notice could not be sent to the other side viz. to the respondent. When the matter appeared on 9.10.2012, Advocate Vinod Talreja was present. We pointed out this aspect to the learned counsel. However, they tried to point out that there is already service on the other side. Other side was also present on that date. We asked other side whether there is service and what type of service is. Then the respondent in person produced before us the letter, which was signed by the officer of the appellant on 23.2.2012. By this letter it is informed that the MTNL has challenged the CDRF order dated 11.10.2011 before the State Commission by filing an appeal No. A12/35. This appeal is listed before the Hon’ble Member of the State Commission on 9.5.2012. Outcome of the appeal will be intimated in due course. This is for your information. This letter has been dispatched by them on 23.2.2012 and it appears from the endorsement on the letter that the respondent has received this letter on 24.2.2012 by post. What is important to be noted that this letter was voluntarily issued by the appellant. There were no directions from the State Commission to
