Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Rita Das vs Mrs. Jayashri Ghosh & Ors on 14 December, 2011
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
1
In The High Court At Calcutta
Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate side
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Harish Tandon.
C.O. No. 3111 of 2008.
Smt. Rita Das
-vs-
Mrs. Jayashri Ghosh & Ors.
For the petitioner : Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya
: Mr. S. Ghosh
: Mr. S. Gangopadhyay
: Mr. T. Chowdhury
For the opposite parties. : Mr. N.R. Mukherjee
: Mr. S. Mukherjee
: Mr. S.R. Sen
: Mr. Goutan Dey
Heard on : 06.11.2008 & 09.12.2011
Judgment on : 14.12.2011
HARISH TANDON, J.:
This revisional application is directed against judgment and order dated 16.04.2008 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in SC Case No. 183/A/ 2007 affirming those 2 judgment and order dated 24.04.2007 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in CC Case No. 292 of 2004.
The facts involved in this revisional application are that the petitioner was initially seized and possessed of 2 cottahs 12 chittaks 31 sq.ft of land comprised in Municipal Premises No. 29, Jadu Mitra Road, Kolkata- 700034 whereas another plot of land measuring 3 cottahs 6 chittaks 15 sq.ft comprised in Municipal premises No. 148A, Bonamali Ghosal Lane, Kolkata-700 034 was owned by the cousin sister of the petitioner namely Ratna Biswas (nee Das) since deceased. After the death of the said cousin sister, husband and minor son transferred the said Municipal Premises No. 148A, Bonamali Ghosal Lane Road, Kolkata-700034 to the petitioner and one Soma Adhikary, the proforma opposite party No.3 herein for valuable consideration of Rs. 1,60,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- paid by the petitioner and the remaining Rs. 40,000/- was paid by the said proforma opposite party No.3 after obtaining a permission from the learned District Judge, South 24-Parganas. The aforesaid two plots were, thereafter, amalgamated and the entire plot of land was renumbered as 29, Jadu Mitra Road, Kolkata-700034. Subsequently, by virtue of a development agreement entered into between the petitioner as well as one M/s. B.M. Construction of partnership firm for development of the said 3 amalgamated plot of land and in order to facilitate and/or smooth progress in the construction power of attorney were executed in favour of the partners of the said partnership firm. The complainant opposite party No. 1 alleges that she being the intending power entered into an agreement for purchase of a Flat No.2A on the second floor of the developed building on 23 April, 1995 and paid the entire consideration money from time to time and the said developer handed over the possession to her on 6th February, 1997. It would be pertinent to mention that the said agreement was executed on another judicial stamp paper of Rs.10/-. It is a specific case of the complainant/opposite party No.1 that in spite of handing over the possession, no conveyance and/or sale deed is executed in her favour.
The complainant opposite party No.1, thereafter, approached the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kolkata and filed C C Case No. 292 of 2004 for an order directing the petitioner as well as the said promoter to execute and registered the deed of conveyance and in respect of the said flat and also compensation to the tune of 2 Lakhs for unnecessary harassment together with the cost of the proceeding.
The petitioner contested the said complaint by taking a plea that she is not a consumer within the definition of a consumer under the Consumer 4 Protection Act. It is further contended that after the Promulgation of West Bengal Stamp, (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instrument) Rules 1994, and West Bengal Building ( Regulation of Promotion) Act, 1993 the unregistered agreement does not create any right an interest in favour of the purchaser.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (herein after the District Forum) did not consider the aforesaid objections but proceeded on the basis that if the entire consideration money is received, it is an obligation of the developer and owner to execute and registered the title deed in favour of the complainant/opposite party No.1 The said judgment and order was assailed before the State Commission by the petitioner. The State Commission dismissed the said appeal on the ground that the stamp affixed on the agreement for sale is sufficient and registration is not mandatory.
Assailing the aforesaid order in this revisional application, the petitioner submits that the Consumer Court Exercising Jurisdiction under Consumer Protection Act is not competent to pass a decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale. He further submits that under the 5 West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transferred by Promoters) Act, 1993 creates a bar on the court to entertain or decide any question relating to the matters arising under any of the provisions of the said Act as such the consumer court is not competent to decide such issue. It is strenuously argues that if the relief could be granted by the Civil Court, such power cannot be exercised by the consumer forum having limited jurisdiction. Lastly it is contended that when the special statute creates an embargo upon the court exercising jurisdiction under the general statute to adjudicate the disputes or claims arising out of the said speci1al statute, the jurisdiction of the court functioning under the general statute is excluded. It is contended that the District Forum or the State Commission has not been vested with any power to grant relief which the Civil Court can grant. It is further contended that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 can be applied in addition to and not in derogation with any other law and should act within the provisions laid down under Sections 9 and 10 of the said Act. Lastly it is submitted that mere agreement of sale does not create any title in favour of the complainant/opposite party No.1. In support of the aforesaid contentions following judgments are relied:
(i) Narayan Chandra Ghosh & Anr. Vs. Biswajit Lahiri 2006 (1) CHN 401 6
(ii) General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 481
(iii) In re: State Transport Authority & Anr. 1991 (2) CHN 131
(iv) Arvind Mills Ltd. Vs. Associated Roadways (2004) 11 SCC 545
(v) Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur (2010) 11 SCC 159
(vi) Faquir Chand Gulati Vs. Uppal Agencies Private Limited and another (2008) 10 SCC 345
(vii) Ratan Chand Hira Chand Vs. Askar Nawaz Jung (dead) by Lrs and Ors (1991) 3 SCC 67 And unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Suraj Lamp and Industry Pvt.Ltd Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. ( SIL C No. 139 of 17 2009 decided on October 11, 2011).
On behalf of the complainant/ opposite party No.1 it is contended that the Consumer Forum is competent to pass an order for execution and registration of the sale deed. It is further contended that the Consumer Protection Act is in addition to and not in derogation in any other law and as such is competent to decide and adjudicate the claim which may fall within the purview of the other statute. Lastly it is contended that the Housing Construction has 7 been included within the definition of service under Section 2 (o) of the said act.
Having considered the respective submissions, admittedly, the petitioner entered into a development agreement with the partnership firm i.e. M/s B.M. Construction for development of the plot of land owned and possessed by her along with the proforma opposite party No.3 herein. It appears from the statement made in the revisional application that the said proforma opposite party No.3 by executing and registering a deed of sale transferred her share in favour of the petitioner and thus the petitioner became the sale owner in respect of the entire plot of land comprised in the said Municipal Premises. It is not disputed that the complainant/opposite party No.1 intends to purchase the flat No.2A on the second floor of the newly constructed building on the strength of an agreement for sale dated 23 April, 1995. It is also undisputed that the possession has been handed over to the complainant/opposite party No.1 in respect of the said flat.
Although various allegations viz. non furnishing of the completion certificate, delay in execution of the deed of sale etc. are made in the said complaint but an ultimate relief is sought in the form of an order directing the execution and registration of the sale deed as well as the compensation 8 for such delay. On meaningful reading of the said complaint it is essentially a complaint relating to the specific performance of an agreement for sale.
The petitioner has taken a specific plea that the consumer forum is not competent to grant a decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale of the immovable property. The other point which has also been taken to thwart the said complaint is an embargo created under Section 12A of the West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transferred by Promoters) Act, 1993.
The points which emerges in this revisional application are firstly whether the consumer forum is competent to pass an order for execution and registration of the sale deed, secondly exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court under special statute applies to the consumer forum as well.
To maintain a complain before the consumer forum the complainant should be a consumer as defined under Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It would be profitable to quote the definition given to the word "consumer" under the said section which reads thus:
"Sec.2(d) "Consumer" means any person who-
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and 9 includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose;or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.
Explanation- for the purposes of this clause, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;"
The complain has also been defined in section 2 (c) of the said Act to mean any allegation in writing made by the complainant relating to any unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice by any trader or service provider, defects in the goods, deficiency in services hire avail or agree to hire or avail etc. Under Section 2 (g) of the said Act, deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for 10 the time being inforced or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
Although in the definition of service under Section 2 (o) of the said Act initially Housing Construction was not included but by amendment Act 50 of 1993 the same has been inserted with effect from 18.06.1993. On conjoint reading of the aforesaid definition the complaint must be a consumer who hires or avails of any services for a consideration from a person who is guilty of committing deficiency in such services. It is a specific case of the complainant/ opposite party No.1 that by inserting Housing Construction within the definition of service, the Consumer Forum has been clothe with the power to pass an order for execution and registration of a sale deed.
If the tribunal or forum or court has a power to grant a relief then it must have a further power to execute. The Civil Court can pass a decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale of the immovable property under the different provisions contained in specific relief Act and has further power to execute such decree in the event of non-compliance under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.11
The jurisdiction of the District Forum is provided under Section 11 of the said Act to include the pecuniary and the territorial jurisdiction. The procedure for dealing the complaint is provided under Section 13 where sub-section 4 postulates that the District Forum shall have the power as are vested in the Civil Procedure Code while trying a suit in respect of the following matters namely
(i) The summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant or witness an examining the witness of oath.
(ii) The discovery and production of any document or other material as evidence.
(iii) The reception of evidence on affidavit.
(iv) The requisite in all the report of the concerned analyst or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source.
(v) Issuing of any commission for the exemption of any witness and
(vi) any other matter which may be prescribed
Section 25 of the said act envisages the enforcement of the orders of the District Forum, State Commission or National Commission which reads thus:
"Sec. 25.Enforcement of orders of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission.- (1) where an interim order 12 made under this Act, is not complied with, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, may order the property of the person, not complying with such order to be attached.
(2) No attachment made under sub-section (1) shall remain in force for more than three months at the end of which, if the non-compliance continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds thereof, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission may award such damages as it thinks fit to the complainant and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.
(3) Where any amount is due from any person under an order made by a District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, the person entitled to the amount may make an application to the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, and such District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission may issue a certificate for the said amount tot he Collector of the district (by whatever name called) and the Collector shall proceed to recover the amount in the same manner as arrears of land revenue."
It is now settled that the district forum has a trapping of a court SBP & Company Vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. (2005) 8 SCC 618 Sub paragraph 4 of Section 13 restricts the exercise of the power of a civil court unless prescribed. Although it has a trapping of a court but is functioning under the restrictive powers and jurisdiction. Even if it is argued that it has a power to pass an order for execution and registration of the sale deed but its enforcement under Section 25 does not envisage that in the event of failure to comply such order, the execution and registration could be done through the consumer forum. If the special statute provides the restrictive applicability of the procedural law like civil procedure code then the 13 provisions which is not included therein does not apply unless otherwise prescribed.
Initially I was inclined to hold that the consumer forum does not have any power to pass an order which is, in effect, a decree for specific performance of an agreement for sale but after noticing the judgment of the Apex court in case of M Frances B Martins (supra), as well as the division bench judgment of this court in case of Mandira Mukherjee Vs. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum reported in (2005) 4 CHN 694 the position is reversed. In case of Mr. Frances B Martins (supra) the district forum rejected the complaint on the ground of limitation but the State Commission while allowing an appeal passed direction for specific performance of an agreement which was affirmed by the National Commission. The Apex Court in the aforesaid backdrop did not interfere with the order passed by the State Commission. The Division Bench in case of Mondira Mukherjee (supra) was considering the similar point as involved in this writ petition and observed:
"Para 7.1. That apart, the Specific Relief Act is a law that recognizes the right of specific performance of a contract available to a partly aggrieved and such relief can be had before the Civil Court. There is nothing in the Specific Relief Act which provides that the relief under the said Act cannot be had anywhere else other than the Civil Court. A 14 contract can very well be enforced before an Arbitrator if it contains an arbitration clause.
7.2. This principle is recognized in the decision in Olympus Superstructures Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein the Apex Court had held that the Arbitrator has every jurisdiction to grant relief of specific performance for sale of an immovable property. The Apex Court in the said decision had held in no uncertain term that the right to the specific performance of an agreement of sale deals with contractual rights and it is certainly open to the parties to agree, with a view to shortening litigation in regular Courts, to refer the issues relating to specific performance to arbitration. There is no prohibition in the Specific Relief Act, 1963 that issues relating to specific performance of contract relating to immovable property cannot be referred to arbitration. The Apex Court had occasion to deal with the decision in Lakshmi Narain vs. Raghbir Singh, AIR 1956 Punj. 249 by Punjab High Court and the Bombay High Court in Fertiliser Corpn. of India vs. Chemical Construction Corpn., ILR 1974 Bom. 856 (DB) and the Calcutta High Court in Keventer Agro Ltd. vs. Seegram Comp. Ltd., disposed of on 27th January 1998 by Hon'ble Mrs. Ruma Pal, J., as His Lordship then was, being APO No. 498 of 1997 while disagreeing with the decision of Delhi High Court taking a contrary view in P.N.B. Finance Ltd. vs. Shital Prasad jain, AIR 1991 Del. 13. The Apex Court had quoted the observation made by Hon'ble Mrs. Ruma Pal, J. With approval that:
"....merely because the sections of the Specific Relief Act confer discretion on Courts to grant specific performance of a contract does not mean that parties cannot agree that the discretion will be exercised by a Forum of their choice. If the converse were true, then whenever a relief is dependent upon the exercise of discretion of a Court by stature e.g. the grant of interest or costs, parties could be precluded from referring the dispute to arbitration."
7.3. True that this decision was related to arbitration but that would not preclude the Consumer Forum to be placed in the shoes of the arbitrator principally on the ration decided in those decisions. The question is whether any forum other than Civil Courts can exercise discretion with regard to specific performance of contract for sale of an immovable property in terms of the Specific Relief Act or whether the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum is excluded by reason of any provision contained in the Specific Relief Act. If it can be true in relation to arbitration then there cannot be any bar of its being equally true in relation to a proceeding before the Consumer Forum.
15
7.6. Admittedly, the flat being an immovable property, may not come within the definition of 'goods' within the meaning of section 2(1) of the 1986 Act to mean, goods as defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. But since the transaction contemplated, though related to immovable property, consists of various other obligations and performance and services in relation thereto comprising of series of contracts combined into one, the property sought to be transferred having an element of immovable property would not preclude the other part of the contract which may consist of the performances or services which the writ petitioner or the owner are obliged to perform or provide, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum cannot be excluded.
7.7. So far as the definition of the consumer in section 2(d) is concerned, in clause (I) it means a person who buys any goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment. Whereas clause (ii) includes person who hires any services for a consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment. As soon the contract include certain services a consumer entitled to receive the benefit of such services would definitely come within the definition of consumer and can very well maintain an application before the Forum under the 1986 Act.
7.8. The definition of the word 'service' is of very wide amplitude. Section 2(o) defined service to mean service of any description made available to potential users and includes but not limited to various other matters including house construction. This agreement, admittedly, includes an agreement for house construction. The definition is not only inclusive of the matters enumerated but also includes all incidences related to the matters included therein by using the phrase "but not limited to". The scheme of the definition was intended not only to widen the scope of the definition but also to include all incidental as well as ancillary matters related to the service under the definition.
7.9. Thus, if there is an agreement for construction of a house with an agreement for execution and registration of a conveyance then, after the delivery upon full payment of consideration, such execution and registration of a conveyance would be a service. It would still remain a service, even if it is contended that because of the amendment of section 17 of the Registration Act, the agreement was unenforceable since practically for all reasonable purposes and fictionally the possession of the property has been delivered to the consumer pursuant to the agreement for 16 sale intending to convey title to the property and the formalities relating to the execution and registration of the conveyance, a service obligation remains to be performed. In such a case where the contract is almost performed in other respects and only the formalities for legally conveying title remains to be preformed pursuant to the scheme formulated, as involved in the present case, the obligation of execution and registration of conveyance would be a 'service' within the meaning thereof as defined in section 2 (o)."
By respecting the judicial discipline as well as Article 141 of the Constitution of India, I am bound by the law declared by the Apex court as well as the Division Bench and thus hold that the Consumer Forum is competent to pass an order for execution and registration of the title deed.
On bare reading of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 there is no doubt that the said Act is in addition to and not in derogation with any law. It cannot be conceived that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded and vested upon the Consumer Forum but it is an establishment of a special forum which does not offend any statute or any other law. If the special statute enacted for the purpose of determination and/or adjudication in relation and/or touching the matter covered therein by a special forum whether the consumer forum can still invoke its jurisdiction by taking recourse to Section 3 of the said Act. Before proceeding further, it would be profitable to quote Section 12 A of the West 17 Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transferred by Promoters) Act, 1993 which reads thus:
" 12A. Bar on jurisdiction of Court.-(1) No Civil Court shall have any jurisdiction to entertain or decide any question relating to matters arising under any provision of this Act or the rules made thereunder.
(2) Every order passed by the authorised officer which is subjcet to appeal or revision, every order passed by the authority referred to in sub-
section (1) of section 5, and every order passed by the officer referred to in section 6, which is subject to revision, and every order passed by the State Government in revision, shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court of law."
Thus the matter relating to or touching the aforesaid provision of the Special Act shall be decided by a competent authority appointed under the said Act and the jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded. There is no factual quarrel that the grievance of the complainant/opposite party No.1 in the complaint is non-execution and non-registration of the sale deed which come within the ambit of the said Act which provides that in the event, the promoter is not complying the terms of an agreement, then the remedy can be resorted under the said special statute. The scope of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act came up for consideration before the Apex Court in case of Arvind Mills Ltd. (supra) where it is observed:
"Para 8.The fact that the remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law does not mean that the rights under the Carriers Act can be exercised, except in accordance with the manner provided under the Act. Sections 9 and 10 form an integral scheme by which a common carrier is fastened with liability irrespective of proof of negligence. Merely, because of the procedure under the Consumer Protection Act is summary in nature does 18 not in any way warrant the abrogation of the requirement to serve notice under section 10 of the Carriers Act before fastening any liability under that Act on the carriers."
Thus even if the remedies under the Consumer Protection Act is in addition to and not in derogation with any other law but while granting such remedy, the forum cannot bypass the relevant provisions of the special statute and usurp unlimited jurisdiction. Upon being excluded expressly if the civil court does not have jurisdiction, the consumer forum cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 3 of the said Act.
The Division Bench of this court in case of Naryan Chandra Ghosh and Anr. ( supra) was dealing a matter where the suit for a specific performance of an agreement for sale of a flat was instituted. In such perspective, it is held that non-execution and/or non-registration of the sale deed covers a matter arising under the provision of the said Act and thus the court has no jurisdiction to entertain such suit in these words:
"Para 2. The appellants herein filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of purchase of a flat executed between the plaintiffs and the defendant, a promoter, on the allegation that in spite of making full payment of the consideration money, the promoter was not handing over possession of the flat to the plaintiffs. In the said suit an alternative prayer for recovery of the consideration money paid by the plaintiffs ws made in the event the prayer of specific performance was refused.19
10. Therefore, the sole question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether on the basis of averments made in the plaint the suit was barred under Section 12A of the Act.
11. To appreciate the aforesaid contention raised by the learned Counsel for the parties it will be profitable to refer to the provision contained in section 12 A which is quoted below:
"12A. Bar on jurisdiction of Court.-(1) No Civil Court shall have any jurisdiction to entertain or decide any question relating to matters arising under any provision of this Act or the rules made thereunder.
(2) Every order passed by the authorised officer which is subjcet to appeal or revision, every order passed by the authority referred to in sub-
section (1) of section 5, and every order passed by the officer referred to in section 6, which is subject to revision, and every order passed by the State Government in revision, shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court of law."
12. After going through the aforesaid provision we find that by enactment of section 12 A the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain or decide any question relating to the matters arising under the provision of the Act or rules made thereunder is totally barred.
13. If we read the plaint as a whole, we find that the grievance of the plaintiffs is that in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties they gave full amount of the consideration money to the promoter but the promoter was not complying with the terms of the agreement."
In case of Faqir Chand Gulati (supra) the Supreme Court was considering the nature of the joint venture agreement which on its violation and/or breach may provide remedy before the Consumer Forum, in course of deciding such an issue it is held:
"Para 34. We may notice here that if there is a breach by the landowner of his obligations, the builder will have to approach a civil court as the landowner is not providing any service to the builder but merely undertakes certain obligations towards the builder, breach of which would furnish a cause of action for specific performance and/or damages. On the other hand, where the builder commits breach of his obligations, the owner 20 has two options. He has the right to enforce specific performance and/or claim damages by approaching the civil court. Or he can approach the Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, for relief as consumer, against the builder as a service provider. Section 3 of the Act makes it clear that the remedy available under the Act is in addition to the normal remedy or other remedy that may be available to the complainant.
35. The District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission committed a serious error in wrongly assuming that agreements of this nature being in the nature of joint venture are outside the scope of consumer disputes."
The judgment of the State Transport Authority and Anr. (supra) cannot be said to be a good law as it has been held therein that neither the District Forum nor the State Commission has a trapping of a civil court, in view of the 7th Judges Bench decision rendered by the Supreme Court in case of SBP (supra). The Supreme Court in case of M Krishnan and Anr. (supra) 2009 8 SCC 481 held that the Special Law overrides the general law and the consumer forum cannot usurp power and jurisdiction to decide a matter if the same is conferred upon the special forum in following words:
"Para 8. It is well settled that the special law overrides the general law. Hence, in our opinion the High Court was not correct in its approach. In Thiruvalluvar Transport Corpn. v. Consumer Protection Council it was held that the "National Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon claims for compensation arising out of motor vehicles accidents". We agree with the view taken in the aforesaid judgment."21
The unreported judgement relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable in the present case in as much as the point therein was whether by execution of the sale agreement/general power of attorney/will creates any right title an interest in respect of the immovable property.
Thus in view of the specific embargo created under the Special Act, the Consumer Forum or the State Commission was not competent to pass the order and/or entertain the said completion. The order impugned in this revisional application are hereby set aside.
The revisional application is allowed.
However, this order shall not be construed to preclude the complainant opposite party No.1 for approaching the appropriate forum for ventilation of her grievance raised in this revisional application.
(Harish Tandon, J.)