Back
1996 Supreme(All) 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PALOK BASU, V. P. GOEL
ANIL SETHI - Appellant
Versus
PRESIDENT, CONSUMERS PROTECTION DISTRICT FORUM - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 146 Of 1996
Decided On : 01/03/1996
K.L.GROVER
A consumer has a statutory right of appeal against any order made by the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, including a show cause notice issued under Section 27 of the Act.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - APPEAL - RIGHT OF APPEAL - STATUTORY RIGHT OF APPEAL AGAINST ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE ACT - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 15, 27.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a senior manager of Punjab National Bank, was issued a show cause notice by the President of the District Consumer Forum under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for allegedly flouting the directions contained in an earlier order of the Forum. The petitioner challenged the show cause notice, arguing that he had a statutory right of appeal against the order under Section 15 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner had a statutory right of appeal against the show cause notice under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court noted that Section 15 permits "any aggrieved person" to "prefer an Appeal" against orders made by the District Forum, and that the petitioner was aggrieved by the show cause notice. The court also noted that the petitioner had already filed an appeal against the main order in the case, which had been stayed by the State Commission.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had a statutory right of appeal against the show cause notice under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner had a statutory right of appeal against the show cause notice under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court interpreted Section 15 broadly, holding that it permits appeals against any order made by the District Forum that aggrieved the appellant. The court also noted that the petitioner had already filed an appeal against the main order in the case, which had been stayed by the State Commission. The court held that it would be anomalous to allow the District Forum to proceed with the show cause notice while the main order was stayed.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner had a statutory right of appeal against the show cause notice and that the writ petition was therefore not maintainable.
PALOK BASU, J.
( 1 ) ANIL Sethi, Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Office Surya Nagar, Agra in his personal capacity as also in his official capacity as Senior Manager of the said Branch of the Bank are the two petitioners in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India: The opposite parties are the President, Consumers Production District Forum, Agra, the National Insurance Company Limited, Agra and one Shri Surendra Singh a resident of Agra. The challenge in this writ petition is extended to the order dated 14-12-1995 Annexure-7 to the writ petition whereby the petitioners have been asked by the District Forums President to show cause by personally presenting himself on 5-1-1996 why order under Section 27 of the Consumers Protection Act 1986 (for short the Act) be passed against the petitioner Anil Sethi for having, wilfully flouted the directions contained in the order of the District Forum dated 20-12-1994.
( 2 ) THE facts lie in a very narrow compass. The aforesaid Surendra Singh, had made a complaint before the President District Forum on certain allegations which has been disposed of by the aforesaid order dated 20-1-1994. It was directed that National Insurance Company should pay Rs. 73,000. 00 and odd with interest at the rate of 18% from 15-10-1989 along with Rs. 5,000. 00 as damages. It appears that the Insurance Company did not comply with the said directions whereupon in execution an order was passed by the President of the District Forum on 4-11-1994. This order contained certain directions to be followed by the Punjab National Bank Branch Office. By the show cause notice impugned in this writ petition the view taken by the Forum is that by the inaction on the part of the Bank inspite of the order dated 4-11-1995 a cause for issuing a show cause notice under Section 27 of the Act has been made out.
( 3 ) NATIONAL Insurance Company ,however, preferred an Appeal in the meantime before the State Forum and the following interim order has been passed in the said Appel. "national Insurance Co. Ltd. Surendra Singh27-11-1995having hued Shri A. K. Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant we direct issue of notice of the appeal the application to condonation in delay in its presentation and the stay application to the respondent on 26-4-1996. We also direct that if within a month from today the applicants pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 awarded as compensation by the District Forum and deposit the remaining amount due from then in the form of a F. D. R. of a Nationalised Bank in favour of the President of the District Forum and valid for 27 months, further execution proceedings in respect of the order under challenge in the appeal shall remain stayed till orders to the contrary by the Commission. Put up the appeal on the date. Sd /- (Member)"
( 4 ) IT is further relevant to mention here that in the Official capacity the Bank informed the President District Consumer Forum that, it has already taken steps in pursuance of the aforesaid interim order passed by the State Forum. Copy of the said letter has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition.
( 5 ) IT is interesting. to note that the President, District Forum while issuing show cause notice has taken due note of the fact that the State Forum has passed the interim order.
( 6 ) SHRI K. L. Grover learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the action of the President District Forum appears to be accentuated by bias and main fides inasmuch as there was no authority with the District Forum to take steps under Section 27 of the Act even by issuing a show cause notice particularly when there was a stay order which in term had stayed the main order wherefrom the execution proceedings may have commenced. It was further argued that since the petitioners have been advised that against the aforesaid show cause noticean Appeal may not be maintainable before the State Forum, the petitioners have no other remedy except to a
