BYFORD vs RAMESH TANEJA

THIS appeal has been filed against the order of the District Forum dated 22.2.90 whereby the learned Forum ordered the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 4,735/- to the respondent within one month of the date of the order.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent filed a complaint dated October 21, 1989 before MRTP Commission, New Delhi against the appellant. Copy of the said complaint was filed by the respondent in the District Forum which was registered as complaint case No. 1605 of 1989. The appellant in their reply dated 17.2.90 opposed the application on the ground that MRTP Commission and the Directorate General of Investigation and Registration were already seized of the matter, jurisdiction of the District Forum could not be involved in parallel proceedings in respect of the same subject matter. The appellants further contended that the main grievance of the respondent was to direct the appellant to take back the car (Padmini BE Model Deluxe) and refund the full amount paid towards its purchase that being so the appellants questioned the jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint on the plea that the price of the car being beyond one lac the complaint could not be entertained by the District Forum. The appellants consequently prayed to the District Forum that the proceedings pending before the Forum be dropped.

The case was fixed for hearing on 20th February. 1990. From the perusal of the record it transpires that the respondent amended his claim on the said date i.e. 20th February, 1990 claiming the sum of Rs. 10,445,50/- The District Forum on the same day by the impugned order directed the appellant to pay Rs. 4,735/-.

THE appellants grievance is that the respondent having chosen MRTP Forum for seeking relief of his grievance the respondent could not invoke the jurisdiction of the District Forum in respect of the same matter. THEre appears to be force in this submission. THE respondent having already approach MRTP for the redress of his grievance he could not take parallel proceedings before the District Forum. THE relief sought by respondent in the original complaint before the Forum was that the car supplied by the appellant being defective, he was entitled to refund of the amount paid by him. It is beyond dispute that the price of the car is above rupees one lac. Accordingly the Forum could not entertain the complaint. THE revised claim was filed on 20th February, 1990, the date fixed for hearing. THE District Forum without complying with the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 passed the order on the vary day that the revised claim was filed. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act requires the Forum to refer a copy of the complaint to the opposite party directing him to give his version the case within a period of 30 days. When the opposite party, on receipt of the copy of the complaint denies or dispute the allegations contained in the complaint or fails to represent the case within the time given, the District Forum shall proceed to decide the dispute on the "basis of the evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the opposite party or on the basis of the evidence brought to its notice by the complainant, where the opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his case. The Forum in the instant case did not afford any opportunity to the appellants. The respondent as noted above filed the revised claim on 20th February, 1990. No evidence was adduced in its support. The learned Forum for reasons best known to it hastened to pass the impugned order.

BESIDES we find that in the complaint filed before MRTP respondent had claimed a sum of Rs. 2,750/- the amount recovered from him as transportation charges of the vehicle. The respondent in his revised claim has asked for the refund of the said amount with interest of 10%. This amount being the subject matter of the complaint before the MRTP relief in respect of this amount could not be entertained by the District Forum. For the reasons stated above we accept the appeal and set-aside the impugned order. Appeal accepted.