Consumer Fora under the Act have same powers as of Civil Court in respect of summoning and enforcing attendance of any defendant and can, direct service of notice by way of substituted service.

ORDER

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission West Bengal dated 12.06.2014 in First Appeal No. 885 of 2012 whereby the State Commission dismissed the miscellaneous application no.317 of 2014 moved on behalf of the petitioner / opposite party.

2. Shorn off the unnecessary details, the necessary facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that the respondent no.2 herein / complainant filed a consumer complaint against the petitioners / opposite parties as also respondents no.3 & 4, before the District Forum Unit I Kolkata, alleging deficiency in service on their part. The consumer complaint was allowed by the District Forum and following directions were issued:

“That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest with cost against OP Nos. 1 & 2 and ex parte with cost against OP No.3 & 4. All OPs are jointly and/or severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.75000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand) only towards compensation for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order i.e. an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.”

3. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission being FA No.885//2012. The State Commission directed issue of notice to the respondents including the complainant. As the respondent complainant could not be served by an ordinary process, the State Commission on hearing dated 16.05.2013 acceeded to the request of the petitioner and directed as under:

“Appellant is present through Ld. Advocate. On the prayer being made by Ld. Advocate. Appellant is permitted to cause paper publication in respect of respondent no. 1 & 3 in a widely circulated daily English newspaper after getting it approved from the office of this Commission fixing 22.08.2013 for filing paper publication”.

4. The petitioner, however, failed to take steps for service on respondent no. 1 & 3 by publication. Thus on 22.08.2013 on the request of learned counsel for the appellant petitioner, the matter was adjourned for 13.12.2014 for substituted service by publication.

5. The appellant petitioner instead of complying the above noted orders of the State Commission moved Miscellaneous Application No.317/2014 seeking modification of said orders on the plea that there was no provision in the Consumer Protection Act ( in short, the Act) authorizing the consumer foras to effect service by way of publication.

6. Miscellaneous Application preferred by the petitioner appellant was dismissed vide impugned order. This has led to filing of the revision petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through Section 28A of the Act and contended that the above noted section deals with service of notice etc. and there is nothing in Section 28A authorizing either District Consumer Forum, State Commission or National Commission to effect service of notice on a party by resorting to substituted service. Thus, the impugned order of the State Commission declining to modify the direction of service of notice by publication is without jurisdiction. As such, it is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karkar & Anr. 2011 (9) SCC 541

8. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived and amounts to abuse of process of law. In order to appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be useful to have a look on as to how the State Commission has dealt w