National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M.K. Meena & 3 Ors. vs Dr. Satish Swaroop Gehlot on 19 January, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 858 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 06/01/2015 in Appeal No. 42/2014 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. M.K. MEENA & 3 ORS. AGM (ADMIN),
G.M.T.D. (BSNL),
OFFICE PALI 2. RAMDEV ARYA SN. GM FINANCE (TRANSFERRED) MEMBER, TRAI,
PAL ROAD, JODHPUR 3. GOPAL KRISHAN AGAARWAL EX-CHIEF GMTD (BSNL),
RAJASTHAN TELEPHONE CIRCLE, JAIPUR 4. GOSWAMI BRAHMPURI EX-ASSISTANT CHIEF ACCOUNT OFFICER (T.R.),
GMTD OFFICE,
MAN JI KA HATHA,
PAWTA, JODHPUR ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DR. SATISH SWAROOP GEHLOT S/O. LATE SH. CHETAN SWARUP GEHLTO,
R/O. NEAR N.N. TAK HOSPITAL,
BHATI KAN SINGH GEHLOT, NAYAPURA,
BSF POST, JODHPUR ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,MEMBER
For the Petitioner : APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS
Mr. Rajat Arora, Advocate with
Mr. Jaypreet Singh, Advocate
Mr. Pankaj Bhandari, General Manager, BSNL For the Respondent : in person
Dated : 19 Jan 2017 ORDER
PRONOUNCED ON: 19th January, 2017
ORDER
PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 06.01.2015, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in appeal No. 42/2014, Gopal Krishan Agarwal & Ors. vs. Dr. Satish Swaroop Gehlot, vide which, while dismissing the appeal against the order dated 09.01.2014, passed in consumer complaint no. 144/2008, it was stated that the appeal was pre-mature, because the District Forum was yet to pass a final order in execution case no. 144/2008, pending before them.
2. Briefly stated, the consumer dispute between the complainant Dr. Satish Swaroop Gehlot and the opposite party (OP) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) involves shifting of the landline BSNL telephone connections of the complainant from one place to another. The parties have been involved in litigation since a long time and ultimately, the order under execution was passed by the District Forum, Jodhpur on 05.03.2008, following the remand order made by this Commission on 18.10.2005. The operative portion of the said order states as follows:-
"Therefore complaint of the complainant is admitted against the non-applicants with regard to two telephones of Jodhpur and the connection of telephone number 544780 and 545885 which is disconnected should be connected within 48 hours of date of decision and non-applicants within two months from date of decision for not keeping telephone number 544780 in safe custody in lieu of the same for deficiency in services Rs. 5,000/-, in lieu of physical and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to not shifting of both the telephones in new hospital Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses total of Rs. 20,000/- are to be paid otherwise the complainant is entitled to obtain the yearly interest of 9% on the aforesaid whole amount to be paid from the date of decision till the date of actual payment."
3. Being aggrieved against the above order, an appeal was preferred by the OP BSNL before the State Commission, but the same was dismissed by that Commission on 11.08.2010, thus upholding the order dated 05.03.2008.
4. It has been stated by the petitioner BSNL that in pursuance of the order dated 05.03.2008, a team of the petitioner Corporation was sent to plot no. 27 and plot no. 28 of the complainant to get the telephone connection installed in compliance of the order. However, the said team found that the complainant doctor Satish Swaroop Gehlot was not residing there, neither there was any hospital/clinic with the name Bhagwan Shirdi Sai Baba Hospital. The BSNL also deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with the District Forum on 26.03.2008 in pursuance of the order dated 05.03.2008. The petitioner, thereafter, sent the balance amount of Rs. 12,250/- in terms of order dated 05.03.2008 alongwith interest to the complainant, but the same was returned. Thereafter, the petitioner again sent cheque of Rs. 12,250/- to the complainant alongwith a forwarding letter that the telephone connections could not be installed at the said premises, as the complainant was not in possession of the same, but the cheque was returned by the complainant. The said cheque was then deposited by the BSNL with the District Forum. The officers of the Corporation again visited the site on 24.12.2010 and met the complainant and asked him to provide the address where he wanted the telephones to be installed. He replied, however, that he had already refused to get the said telephone connections.
5. It is further stated that the complainant filed an execution application no. 144/2008 under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum with the prayer that the OPs should be sent to severe imprisonment and the complainant should be granted a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as costs. Vide order dated 09.01.2014, the District Forum observed as follows in the last paragraph of the order:-
"therefore the criminal proceedings initiated further under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act appear to be reasonable. For this purpose, non-applicants will be present before this Forum on the next date of hearing.
Order is pronounced today in the open court on 09.01.2014."
6. Being aggrieved against the above order of the District Forum, the OPs challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission, which was decided on 06.01.2015 and it was stated that the appeal was pre-mature because the final decision in the aforesaid case no. 144/2008 was yet to be passed. The appeal was ordered to be dismissed accordingly.
7. Being aggrieved against the said order, the OP BSNL is before this Commission by way of the present Revision Petition.
8. During hearing before us, the petitioner brought two demand drafts in the name of complainant for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and 13,650/- and offered the same to him as full and final settlement, but the complainant was not willing to accept the drafts. The petitioners also made an offer to install two telephones no. 544780 and 545885 at the premises of the complainant, but he refused to accept the telephones as well. The demand draft in question was then ordered to be deposited before this Commission.
9. During arguments, it was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Forum had decided to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 27 of the Act, which was not desirable, given the facts and circumstances of the case. The order passed by the State Commission saying that the appeal before them was pre-mature, was not in accordance with law. The petitioner should, therefore, be given relief as per their prayer in the petition to quash the contempt proceedings against them in complaint case no. 144/2008 before the District Forum.
10. The complainant/respondent, who appeared in person, stated that due to wrong doings of the OPs, he had suffered a lot by way of loss of practice and hence, the OPs should be given severe punishment.
11. After a careful examination of the order passed by the District Forum on 09.01.2014 and that passed by the State Commission on 06.01.2015, it is made out that the District Forum after recording the facts of the case, observed that criminal proceedings initiated under Section 27 of the Act appeared to be reasonable and for that purpose, the non-applicants will be present before that forum on the next date of hearing. The State Commission rightly observed that final order in the execution application was yet to be passed by the District Forum and hence, the appeal before them was premature. It is observed that provisions in the shape of Section 25 and Section 27 have been included in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for enforcement of the orders passed by the consumer fora at various levels and also to impose penalties, as and where needed. Under Section 27 of the Act, the consumer fora have been conferred the powers of Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the trial of offences under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In a recent order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 224-225 of 2015, Kamlesh Aggarwal vs. Narain Singh Dabbas & Anr., it has been made incumbent upon the consumer fora to follow the procedure as laid down in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, while exercising the powers conferred upon them. It is evident, therefore, that the District Forum is well within their powers to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law, if they reach the conclusion that the OPs had not implemented the orders passed by the consumer fora.
12. From the foregoing discussion, it is made out that the impugned order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity as they have observed that the appeal before them was pre-mature, because final decision was yet to be taken by the District Forum. The said order of the State Commission is, therefore, upheld and the present Revision Petition is ordered to be dismissed. The District Forum shall pass their order afresh, keeping in mind the observation made in this judgment. Needless to emphasise that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file appeal before the State Commission, in case, they are aggrieved by any such order of the District Forum. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... PREM NARAIN MEMBER