DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, NORTH-EAST RAILWAYS vs MAULANA ABDUL KALAM AZAD MINORITIES SOCIETY

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 4.4.2003 passed by District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar. The order reads as under :

THE complainant filed a complaint with the allegations that it is a duly registered Social Service Institution and under the provisions of the Act, it has got a right to file a complaint. It is alleged that the Ram Nagar-Moradabad Division of the Railways is under the Opposite Party. THE trains run late and there is no arrangement of cleaning water and light in the trains. THE 434 Dn. train should reach Moradabad on 15:45, but it was unnecessarily detained at the outer and was unncessarily delayed. On 30th January, 2001, the train came late by one hour. On 2nd February, 2001 and on several other dates also, accordingly the train came late. All other trains also run late at this route. All the passengers suffer for non-supply of water, electricity and running of trains late. A notice was sent to the respondents, but no reply was received. THE complainant, therefore, asked for compensation and also for a direction for proper running of the train. There is nothing in the complaint that the complainant has purchased any ticket. There is nothing in the complaint that the complainant is a consumer and it travels in these trains. It is only alleged in para 1 of the complaint that the complainant is a registered Society and in all the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and under other law, it has got a right to file complaint regarding public interest. It is nowhere alleged that any ticket was ever purchased for travelling in these trains by any of the members of the Society or any other consumer who has approached them for filing a litigation.

However, the opposite party contested the petition, denied the allegations and alleged that the petition is not admissible under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

AFTER taking the evidence of the parties, the learned Forum decided the case as above. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The respondent sent written replies to this appeal alleging that it is a public institution, it has got no money to appoint a Lawyer to conduct the case. It is true that any Consumer Association can file a complaint, but necessarily it should be a Consumer Association. A consumer is not a consumer, who is ordinarily spoken to be a consumer in the public, but, a consumer is a consumer if he is so defined under the provisions of the Act. We meant to say that there is difference in the meaning of consumer spoken in the public and in meaning of the consumer in the Act. A consumer is only a person as defined in the Act, who buy any goods for consideration, which has been paid or promised to be paid or is a person who avails of any service for consideration. It is not said anywhere that the complainant has ever hired or availed any service of the appellant for consideration. If a person is a consumer, then his Association may file a complaint and then alone, he is a consumer under the provisions of law. Thus, the basic requirement is that the voluntary Consumer Association must be of the consumer under the Act. It is also true that under Section 12 of the Act, a recognised Consumers Association, whether the consumer to whom the goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or service provided as agreed to be provided to a member of Association or not, therefore, the Association can file the complaint even on behalf of a consumer who is not a member of Association, but nothing has been alleged in the complaint that any consumer has approached him in this regard.

EVERYBODY will have to appreciate the zeal of the complainant to do a social service and nobody on earth can tell that any train in India is running in time. The delay has become the common feature of the trains, but for that the Consumer Forums have no jurisdiction unless the complainant is a consumer. The ruling reported in II (2003) CPJ 33 (NC)=2003 (1) CPR 282 (NC), Voluntary Organisation in Interest of Consumer Education (VOICE) v. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Tamil Nadu Consumer Welfare Centre v. Mrs. Madhavi and Citizen Consumer & Civil Action Group v. The Chairman, Apollo Hospital, in the matter of authorised representative of the parties, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Voluntary organisations have a right to file the complaint, but, there must be some consumers. In this ruling, the complaint was filed before the State Commission by the widow mother and two minor children of the deceased who died out of negligence of the doctors of Apollo Hospital, Chennai. In this ruling, what was in dispute was whether an authorised representative can argue the case and the matter was decided in the affirmative. But still it is clear that there was a consumer who has died out of negligence and his heirs who are beneficiaries had filed the complaint. The order as passed by the learned Forum is in the nature of mandamus. There is no scope of public interest litigations in Consumer Forums. Public interest litigations without being a consumer can be filed in Hon''ble High Court and the Supreme Court. Consumer Forums are to give justice to poor consumers. It has to act under its limitations and what is necessary is that there must be a consumer, there must be a consumer dispute and then alone, the Consumer Forums will enter into disputes. The injunction order as passed by the learned Forum was not at all within its jurisdiction. The complainant should have been directed to go to the Civil Court to claim injunction or in the Hon''ble High Court or Supreme Court to get the relief under writ jurisdiction. We again appreciate the zeal of the complainant in filing a complaint, but we are sorry that the complaint did not lie here and we have got no option but to allow the appeal and to quash the order passed by the learned Forum. However, the complainant is free to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction, if he so wishes. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 4.4.2003 passed by District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar is, hereby, quashed. The complaint is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, cost of this appeal shall be easy. Appeal allowed.