IMPORTANT POINT
Notice must be properly addressed.

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugnedORDER dated 23.12.2010, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘the State Commission’) in FA No. 192/2007, “Sanjiv Kaushal v. Rajiv Sharma”, vide which while dismissing appeal, theORDER dated 01.08.2006, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur, in consumer complaint no. 836/2004, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant Rajiv Sharma filed the complaint in question under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) for recovery of an amount of Rs.78,100/- from the petitioner. It was stated in the complaint that the petitioner/OP is the President of a society, called the Shri Sai Baba Jan Kalyan Society, and he published advertisements in The Hindustan Times on 13.12.2003, inviting the public to contribute a sum of Rs. 699/- to the Society. The complainant deposited the said amount, after which he was allotted ID No. 0001775. The complainant enrolled 42 more members under the scheme and the necessary amounts were deposited in respect of those persons as well and ID Nos. were allotted to all these members. The petitioner/OP agreed to pay Rs.78,100/- to every Member and also agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 600/- within four to six months to every member. A gift of either a dinner set or a hot-case or an electric iron was also planned to be given to every member. However, on the failure of the OP to meet his commitment, the complainant sent him a legal notice on 1.10.2004 through registered post, but to no effect. The complainant then filed the consumer complaint in question, before the District Forum Gurdaspur seeking directions to the OP to make payment of Rs. 78,100/-, as promised. The District Forum vide theirORDER dated 01.08.2006, allowed the complaint and directed the OP to make payment of Rs. 78,100/- within a period of one month, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to interest @9% p.a. An appeal made against thisORDER before the State Commission was dismissed vide impugnedORDER. It is against thisORDER that the present petition has been made.

3. Notice of the petition was sent to the respondent for appearance before this Commission. However, he did not put in appearance at the time of admission hearing. The petition was admitted on 04.10.2013. Another notice was sent to the complainant/respondent for final hearing, in response to which the complainant/respondent put an appearance in person on 27.01.2014, when the case was adjourned for final hearing on 3.04.2014. However, the complainant did not put in appearance at the time of final arguments.

4. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the jurisdiction to hear the consumer complaint was at Patiala, and not at Gurdaspur. TheORDERs passed by the District Forum, duly affirmed by the State Commission suffer from the error of jurisdiction. Further, the complaint should have been filed against the Society and not against the petitioner in person. The learned counsel stated that as mentioned in the revision petition itself, the petitioner, alongwith six other persons had formed the Shri Sai Baba Jan Kalyan Society that was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 at Patiala in the year 2003. The said Society had floated a business associates scheme, under which a person desirous of enrolling himself as member, was required to deposit one time lump sum amount of Rs. 699/- only with the Society. In return, the Society was supposed to provide him a dinner set or hot-case or electric iron etc. as per his choice. The applicants were encouraged to enrol more members and were promised cash rewards upto Rs. 78,100/- per year for making others to enrol new members. The learned counsel admitted that the said scheme did not last for lo