State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bharti Airtel Limited vs Goverdhan & Ors. on 3 April, 2008
H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA Rev. Pet No. 52/2007 Date of Decision 03.04.2008 Bharti Airtel Limited (Impleaded as Airtel General Manager, Mandi, HP before Ld. Forum Below), 11-A, SDA Commercial Complex, Kasumpti(HP) through its authorized representative. . Petitioner. Versus 1. Sh. Goverdhan, S/o Sh. Keshav R/o Jeor, Tehsil Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi, HP. 2. General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Mandi, District Mandi, HP 3. SDO., BSNL., Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi, HP 4. Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Manohar Lal R/o S.P. Bari, G.P. Barchhwar. . Respondents. Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel, President. Honble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member. Whether Approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate. For the Respondent No.1. Mr. C.L. Awasthi, Advocate. For the Respondents No.2 & 3 Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent No.4 Ex parte. O R D E R:
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral) This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 8.6.2007, passed by District Forum Mandi, in Complaint No. 62/2006, whereby it has been ordered as under:-
We have examined the record. The opposite party No.3 had produced Xerox copy of Identity card of the opposite party No.4 as also the enrolment form. The opposite party No.4 had denied having filled in/up dated the enrolment form. The opposite party No.4 had also denied having signed any stage the enrolment form. We compared the signatures of the opposite party No.4 available on record with his questioned signatures available on enrolment form copy supplied by the opposite party No.3. There are marked and fundamental differences in between the admitted and questioned signatures of the opposite party No.4. It is clear that the opposite party No.3 had misused the identity card of the opposite party No.4 by issuing the mobile No. 98163-42433 in favour of a IIIrd party even though as per the enrolment form, this mobile connection is stated to have been issued to the opposite party No.4. Prima facie, the opposite parties are found to have committed various offences under sections 467,466,420 and 471 IPC. As such, it is ordered that the Superintendent of Police, Mandi shall get First Information report registered under Sections 467,466,420 and 471 IPC in the concerned Police Station and investigate. The complaint/application of the complainant is ordered to be forwarded to the Superintendent of Police Mandi for registration of First Information Report in exercise of the power vested in this Forum Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Copy of the complaint under section 12 of the Act of the complainant, reply there to of the opposite party No.1 to 4 as also the telephone bills in question, print out enrolment form of OP No.4 an other relevant record shall be supplied to the police. The application of the complainant is disposed of.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and is totally unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of this case, even if it be assumed that the District Forum could have ordered the registration of case. It was further urged on behalf of the petitioner that merely because respondent No.4 Ashok Kumar had disputed his signatures on the documents did not authorize and or gave authority to the District Forum below to have ordered the registration of the case under a different sections of IPC, under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C.
3. While challenging the locus of the District Forum to have initiated complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., reliance was placed by Mr. Negi of Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. By referring to these provisions Mr. Negi urged that the complaint if any could only be filed by the persons mentioned in Section 190 and by none else. And according to him District Forum below is not covered by the provision of said section therefore, on this ground also the impugned order is liable to be set aside. To be fair to learned counsel for the petitioner we may notice that he also wanted us to deal with the case on its merits. So far impleadment of his client is concerned, because according to him no relief is claimed in the complaint against the petitioner, and on the averments made therein the dispute, if any, is between respondent No.1 on one side and respondent No.2 and 3 on the other. Above all respondent No.1 is admittedly not the subscriber of any connection of the petitioner. When calls is made from his number to the number of respondent No.4 who is the subscriber of the petitioner, former does not have a right to maintain the complaint against the petitioner.
4. All these pleas have been controverted by Mr. Awasthi on behalf of the respondent No.1. According to him registration of case does not in any manner jeopardize the right of the petitioner to defend itself during the course of the investigation and at the same time to show that what is being said by it in its reply was correct based on record and further that respondent No.4 was one of its subscribers holding telephone No. 98163-42433.
5. So far stand of Mr. Chauhan is concerned, his simple submission is that calls have been made from the telephone of respondent No.1 to different numbers including that of Bharti Airtel Limited, therefore, his client is entitled to recover the amount from respondent No.1
6. In the aforesaid background so far direction regarding registration of case under various sections of IPC by the District Forum below is concerned, we are of the view that no case was made out wherein it could have been so ordered. If ultimately the District Forum below decides that the calls have not been made by respondent No.1 to the telephone number of respondent No.4 which the latter disputes, in such an event how to proceed is a question that is left open to be dealt with after conclusion of the complaint. We have not gone into the merits of the plea of Mr. Awasthi that whether the registration of the case could be ordered by the District Forum or not and whether it had the jurisdiction in this behalf. In view of the aforesaid discussions, order dated 8.6.2007 needs to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. As a consequence of the said order registration of the FIR cant be upheld, so the direction in that behalf to register FIR is quashed and set aside.
Consequently no investigation etc., can be done by the police.
7. So far plea of the petitioner that it needs to be deleted from the array of the respondents is concerned, we are not dealing with this question and leave it open to be first adjudicated upon by the District Forum below before dealing with the complaint on merit. This question will be determined by the District Forum below on the basis of the material before it as well as the averments made in the complaint against the petitioner if any.
8. No other point is urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, while partly allowing this revision petition, it is ordered as under:-
(a) That the impugned order passed by District Forum Mandi in Complaint No. 62/2006, dated 8.6.2007 is quashed and set aside, therefore as a result of it registration of case and investigation cant be done;
(b) District Forum shall proceed in accordance with this order as well as on merits of the complaint of respondent No.1 and shall first decide whether on the material and facts stated in the complaint the petitioner has to be a party or not; and
(c) The District Forum below shall then proceed further in the matter on merits of the complaint after hearing the parties in accordance with law.
Revision stands disposed of finally. Parties represented in this revision petition are directed to appear before District Forum, Mandi on 30.4.2008. No fresh notice will be issued to them in any circumstances. Only notice will now issued to Mr. Neeraj Kumar Advocate, Mandi for OP No.4, and in case he fails to appear after service then District Forum below shall proceed further in accordance with law.
All interims orders passed from time to tome in this revision petition shall stand vacated.
Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the copy of this order from the Reader free of cost.
Shimla.
3rd April, 2008. (Justice Arun Kumar Goel) Retd.
President.
(Saroj Sharma), Karan* Member.