National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Jagannath Mutreja vs Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad & ... on 16 July, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4516 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 15/10/2014 in Appeal No. 1630/2007 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. JAGANNATH MUTREJA S/O RAM CHANDRA MUTREJA, R/O HOUSE NO- A-91, GALI NO-.36, SHOE MARKET, SCHOOL ROAD, UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. UTTAR PRADESH AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD & ANR. 104 MAHATMA GANDHI MARG, THROUGH ITS HOUSING COMMISSIONER, LUCKNOW U.P 2. UTTAR PRADESH AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD VASUNDHARA SCHEME,SAHIBABAD, THROUGH ITS ESTATE OFFICER/R.C TRIPATHI , ASSISTANT HOUSING COMMISSIONER, GHAZIABAD U.P ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : MS. SHALINI KUMAR For the Respondent : Mr. Rajiv Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Rohan R. Makhani, Advocate
Dated : 16 Jul 2015 ORDER
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15.10.2014 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 1630 of 2007 - Jagannath Mutreja Vs. Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Anr. by which, while dismissing appeal order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/petitioner deposited Rs.5,000/- on 28.2.1985 with OP/respondent for allotment of plot and his name was registered. OP vide letter dated 3.11.1996 intimated complainant about increase of price of plot and asked to deposit Rs.25,000/- which were deposited by draft dated 30.11.1996. By letter dated 6.5.1999, OP intimated to the complainant that by lottery dated 22.10.1998, Plot No. 9/1007 has been allotted to the complainant. Inspite of repeated requests, allotment letter was not issued and one clerk of the OP asked the complainant to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- tentatively and complainant deposited Rs.1,00,000/- vide draft dated 8.5.1999; even then, allotment letter has not been issued. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that Manoj Kumar has no right to file complaint on behalf of Jagannath Mutreja. It was further submitted that as payments were not made by complainant in time and possession has not been taken by him, allotment was cancelled by letter dated 5.5.1999 and Rs.30,000/- deposited by him have been forfeited. It was further submitted that after cancellation of allotment Rs.1,00,000/- has been deposited. OP vide letter dated 15.5.1999 asked complainant to deposit balance amount by 31.5.1999 and complainant has concealed aforesaid facts in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint on the ground that complaint filed by power of attorney was not maintainable. Appeal filed by complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that complaint filed through power of attorney was maintainable before District Forum; even then, learned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint as not maintainable and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned orders be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned District Forum to decide complaint on merits. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
5. Perusal of complaint reveals that it has been filed in the name of complainant Jagannath Muthreja through power of attorney Manoj Kumar. Learned District Forum on the basis of judgment of U.P. State Commission in Appeal No. 470/SC/2001 - Sri Avadh Bihari Choudhary Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority held that complaint filed by power of attorney is not maintainable and learned State Commission also on the basis of aforesaid judgment observed that complaint filed by power of attorney is not maintainable and it is compulsory for complainant to file his complaint personally.
6. Section 12 of C.P. Act provides that complaint can be filed by a consumer or by any recognized consumer association. Thus, it becomes clear that complaint can be filed by any consumer or recognized consumer association. It has nowhere been mentioned that complaint cannot be filed through power of attorney. When a complaint can be filed by consumer association on behalf of consumer whether he is member of that association or not, why power of attorney cannot file complaint on behalf of consumer, when he has been authorized to file complaint. Learned Counsel for respondent has drawn my attention towards Rule 2(b) of the C.P. Rules which defines agent according to which agent means a person duly authorized by a party to present any complaint. Rule 14 (1) of aforesaid Rule also provides that complaint shall be presented by complainant in person or by his agent. Thus, it becomes clear that complaint can be presented by the complainant himself or through his agent and general power of attorney holder falls within purview of agent. In such circumstances, complaint filed by general power of attorney on behalf of complainant is maintainable. This Commission in R.P. No. 2721 of 2007 - Consumer Education & Research Society & Anr. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. while allowing revision, order of District forum and State Commission dismissing complaint being filed by power of attorney and not by complainant was set aside and complaint was allowed. He also placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in (2011) 9 SCC 707 - C. Venkatachalam Vs. Ajitkumar C. Shah & Ors. in which it was observed that parties have been given an option to either appear personally or be represented by duly authorized agent and also observed that authorized agents who are not Advocates may file complaints and represent persons before Consumer Fora.
7. In the light of aforesaid judgments it becomes clear that power of attorney holder can file complaint on behalf of complainant and learned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint as not maintainable on the ground that complaint was filed by power of attorney and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal on the same ground and revision petition is to be allowed.
8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 15.10.2014 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 1630 of 2007 - Jagannath Mutreja Vs. Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Anr. and order of District Forum dated 25.5.2007 passed in Complaint No. 923 of 2000 - Jagannath Mutreja Vs. Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Anr. is set aside and matter is remanded back to District Forum to decide complaint on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. District Forum is directed to decide complaint at the earliest as it is 15 years old.
9. Parties are directed to appear before District Forum on 20.8.2015.
......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER