Revision Application No.58 of 2005,IN Consumer Complaint No.97 of 2001

18th March, 2006

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. A. V. PATWARDHAN
Respondent Counsel: Mr. PRAKASH KADAM

JUDGMENT

P. N. KASHALKAR, Presiding Judicial member :- The Estate Officer of CIDCO has filed this Revision Application against the order passed by District Consumer Forum Raigad 09/03/2005 in Complaint No.97/2001.

2. It appears that the complainant filed complaint against the Managing Director, Estate Officer and Executive Engineer of CIDCO for certain reliefs. The District Consumer Forum had passed an ex-parte order on 16/01/2002 against which the appeal was preferred by the org. O.Ps. In the said appeal No.48/2002, ex-parte order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Forum below and CIDCO was directed to file written statement, affidavit and documents on 04/06/2003. The complainant was also directed to file his rejoinder if any before the Forum below on 02/07/2003 and cost of Rs.3,000/- was awarded to the complainant and was payable by the CIDCO within four weeks from 22/04/2003. It appears that the CIDCO Officials committed default in time frame given by this Commission while remanding the complaint back to the District Consumer Forum Raigad. As such, the Learned District Consumer Forum gave some latitude, but still written statement came to be filed belatedly on 06/10/2004. After hearing both the parties, the Learned District Consumer Forum passed the impugned interim order directing the O.Ps. to pay cost of Rs.3,000/- & also directed the CIDCO Officials to make in depth inquiry within one month as to why order of this Commission was not complied with, within the time frame, given by the Commission and also directed to recover Rs.3,000/- from defaulting employees of the CIDCO and directed the CIDCO Officials to take entry of such default committed by the concerned employees in their Service Record and further directed that the Registrar of the District Consumer Forum shall send the certified copy for compliance to the Managing Director, CIDCO by registered post. It is this order dated 09/03/2005 which has been taken strong exception of by the Estate Officer, who has filed this Revision.

3. We heard submissions of Advocate Mr. A. V. Patwardhan for the Estate Officer of CIDCO and Advocate Mr. Prakash Kadam for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

4. We perused the impugned order.

5. Suffice is to say that the impugned order of the Learned District Consumer Forum Raigad is virtually passed exceeding jurisdiction vested in the District Consumer Forum while deciding consumer complaint. It is to be seen that if there is any violation of the order passed by this Commission, the appropriate course on the part of the Learned District Consumer Forum should have been to make report to this Commission and this Commission in turn would have given necessary directions to the org. O.Ps (Appellants in the appeal disposed off by this Commission). Instead of doing so, the Learned District Consumer Forum awarded cost of Rs.3,000/- against Revision applicant and also gave certain directions in prayer clause Nos.2 & 3, which directions per se cannot be given by the District Consumer Forum in its jurisdiction to decide the consumer complaint. Such type of orders are passed by the Hon'ble High Court in its writ jurisdiction. It is to be borne in mind that the Consumer Foras established under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are not vested with the powers of writ jurisdiction, which are available exclusively to the High Court and the Supreme Court under the Constitution. Our Consumer Forum is not having any such powers to pass order of the nature of any sort of writ, which can only be issued by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The impugned order in prayer clause Nos.2 & 3 passed by the Learned District Consumer Forum is therefore absolutely illegal and cannot sustain in law. The Forum below has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it. The said order is demonstrably illegal and propriety demanded the Learned District Consumer Forum should not have passed such type of orders directing the CIDCO Officials to take action against defaulting employees and to recover Rs.3,000/- from those defaulting employees and to take adverse entry in their Service Record. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Forum below is illegal and will have to be quashed by allowing this Revision. Hence the following order:-

-: ORDER :-

1. Revision Application is allowed.

2. Clause Nos.(2) & (3) of the operative order of the District Consumer Forum dated 09/03/2005 is hereby quashed and set aside.

3. The Learned District Consumer Forum is directed to dispose of the main complaint within three months from today.

4. No order as to costs.

5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

Revision application allowed.