DIVISIONAL ENGINEER TELEGRAPH-/O.P. vs BACHA PRASAD

HEARD the learned counsels for the parties. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 23.8.91 passed by the District Forum, Saran (Chapra) in Complaint Case No. 79 of 1991, directing the appellant to restore the telephone No. 2862 of the respondent within 15 days of the order.

THE facts of the case may be briefly stated that Telephone No. 2862 belongs to the Chapra Motors and a sum of Rs. 4.462.70 paise was due from him in respect of different charges for which the telephone of the complainant respondent was disconnected. THE complainant filed complaint before the District Forum alleging that it was unwarranted on the part of the O.P. to disconnect that telephone and the District Forum passed the impugned order, directing the appellant to restore the telephone of the complainant respondent within 15 days. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that impugned order asking the appellant to restore the telephone connection of the complainant respondent is illegal and without jurisdiction, as no such order could be passed by the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act). Section 14(1) of the Act defines the different reliefs which can be given to the consumer and this section does not envisage any such order in the nature of direction. The learned Counsel for the respondent relying on Sub Rule 7 of Rule 4 of the Bihar Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 submits that such direction can be given on the basis of the admission of the O.P. as has been done in the instant case and hence it was within the jurisdiction of the District Forum to pass such order. We do not find any substance in this submission on behalf of the respondent because Rules made under an Act can not confer more powers than the powers conferred on any body under the Act. The District Forum under the Act can pass only such orders as laid down under Section 14 of the Act. We are fortified in our view by a case decided by the National Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 4 of 1990 (A.P. State Electricity Board & Another, v. A.P. State Electricity Consumer Association) decided on 20.8.90, I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC)=1991 (1) CON.C 266 wherein it has been held that the only reliefs which any Consumer Forum can grant to a complainant are those set out under Section 14 of the Act and that as the statute now stands, there is no such power vested in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to issue a direction to a Forum who renders any service as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act to do or desist from doing anything. Under the circumstances we find and. hold that the impugned order cannot be sustained.

In the result the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Forum, Chapra is set aside. The party will bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.