State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rameshwar Dev Pandey vs Smt. Saroj Pandey on 30 January, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 Revision Petition No. RP/31/2017 (Arisen out of Order Dated 18/01/2017 in Case No. C/294/2001 of District Sonbhadra) 1. Rameshwar Dev Pandey S/O Sri Dullar dev Pndey Niwasi sirsi Post Ramgarh Distt. Sonbhadra ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Smt. Saroj Pandey W/O Sri Amar Nath Pandey Niwasi Vill. Sonari Post Nai Bazar Distt. Sonbhadra ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN PRESIDENT For the Petitioner: For the Respondent: Dated : 30 Jan 2018 Final Order / Judgement
ORAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW REVISION NO. R/31/2017 (Against the order dated 18-01-2017 in Complaint Case No. 294/2001 of the District Consumer Forum, Sonbhadra ) Rameshwar Dev Pandey S/o Sri Dullar Dev Pandey R/o Sirsi, Post Ramgar District Sonbhadra ...Revisionist Vs. Smt. Saroj Pandey W/o Sri Amar Nath Pandey R/o Village Sonari, Post Nayee Bazar District Sonbhadra ...Opposite party BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT For the Revisionist : Mr. B K Upadhyaya, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, Advocate. Dated : 30-01-2018 JUDGMENT MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT
This is a revision filed before State Commission under Section-17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against judgment and order dated 18-01-2017 passed by District Consumer Forum, Sonbhadra in Complaint Case No. 294 of 2001 Smt. Saroj Pandey V/s Rameshwar Dev Pandey whereby District Consumer Forum has allowed complaint partially and passed following order in hindi.
'' परिवादिनी का परिवाद विपक्षी के विरूद्ध आंशिक रूप से स्वीकार किया जाता है तथा विपक्षी को आदेश दिया जाता हे कि वह परिवादिनी को प्रश्नगत जीप का किराया मु0 43,000/- रू0 का भुगतान करें। मानसिक व शारीरिक क्षति के रूप में 3,000/- रू0 तथा वाद व्यय के रूप में 3,000/- रू0 का भुगतान करें। उपरोक्त आदेश का पालन एक माह में किया जावे। '' :2: Learned Counsel Sri B K Upadhyaya appeared for revisionist.
Learned Counsel Sri Anil Kumar Mishra appeared for opposite party.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused impugned judgment and order as well as records.
It has been contended by learned Counsel for the revisionist that the complaint filed before District Consumer Forum does not disclose a consumer dispute and the complainant is not a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. As such the cognizance taken by the District Consumer Forum as well as impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum is without jurisdiction and nullity.
Learned Counsel for the opposite party has opposed revision mainly on the ground that revision is not maintainable as the impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is appealable.
Learned Counsel for the revisionist has referred judgment of Hon'ble National Commission rendered in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation V/s Dunger Chand reported in I(1995) CPJ 37 (NC) wherein Hon'ble National Commission has held as follows:-
"We are clearly of the view that even if the appeal was barred by time, a case where the order passed by District Forum is found to be totally without jurisdiction and manifestly illegal, there was a duty case on the State Commission under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act to sue motu take up the matter in revision and set aside the illegal order passed by the District Forum without jurisdiction."
Learned Counsel for the revisionist has referred judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Jagmittar Sain Bhagat (Dr.) V/s Director, Health Services, Haryana and others reported in III(2013) CPJ 22(SC) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:-
"Indisputably, it is a settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior Court, and if the Court passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to nullity as the matter goes to the roots of the cause. Such an issue can be raised at any :3: stage of the proceedings."
Perusal of complaint shows that the dispute raised in complaint by opposite party is not a consumer dispute and opposite party who is complainant in complaint is not a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The averment made in complaint clearly shows that the complainant now opposite party is owner of the vehicle and respondent has hired his vehicle. As such the complainant is service provider and opposite party who is revisionist has availed his service for consideration. As such the complainant is not a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 to decide the dispute raised in complaint. The impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum is apparently without jurisdiction and against law. Therefore in view of above judgment passed by Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation V/s Dunger Chand the revision filed by revisionist who is opposite party of complaint is maintainable and the revisionist is entitled to assail the impugned judgment and order in revision on the ground of jurisdiction.
In view of above revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is without jurisdiction and against law and it is hereby set aside.
Parties shall bear their own costs.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties within 15 days positively as per rules.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN ) PRESIDENT Pnt.
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN] PRESIDENT