GIRRAJ PRASAD TIKKIWAL vs RAM DEO SAINI

SHRI Uttam Kumar Tikkiwal has submitted a writing that he is appearing as an authorised representative of the applicant.

AT the request of the authorised representative of the applicant, this application has been placed before me. Register it as a miscellaneous case. Heard the authorised representative of the applicant at some length. This is an application for transfer of Complaint Case No. 68/91 from the District Forum, Tonk, to any other District Forum of Rajasthan. Eighteen complaints under S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) were filed by separate complainants against the applicant (opposite party before the District Forum, Tonk). They are pending trial before the District Forum, Tonk. The above referred complaint is one of them. The applicant has alleged that the complaint against him was filed mentioning him as proprietor of Laxmi Trading Company. It has been averred in the application for transfer that the complaints were filed on the advice of Shri Ajeet Singh Ex. M.L.A., owner and proprietor of Palace Hotel. The complaints were filed by suppressing true facts on the "Sajish ayom Salah" of the proprietor and employee Shri Raja Ram Chaudhary of Palace Hotel. In para 6 of the application allegations of political rivalry have been stated. It is as under : Sushri Usha Rajput is one member of the District Forum, Tonk which is presided over by the District and Sessions Judge, Tonk. She is daughter of Shri Ajeet Singh, Ex. M.L.A. The Applicant apprehends that she will influence the other two members (one Member and President) and thus he will not get justice from the District Forum, Tonk. An application for transfer of the complaint was submitted by the applicant before the District Forum, Tonk but it was dismissed by it holding that it had no jurisdiction to transfer the complaint.

The applicant has prayed that the complaint referred to above pending before the District Forum, Tonk may be withdrawn and the same may be transferred for trial and disposal to any other District Forum of Rajasthan.

PERUSED the application for transfer, affidavit in support thereof, the photo copy of the complaint and the order passed by the District Forum, Tonk refusing the prayer of the applicant for transfer of the complaint. The submissions made by the authorised representative were also considered. It is true that the State Commission has passed some orders for transfer prior to December 1990. The President, National Commission, New Delhi has observed in his letter dated December 19,1990 that there is no provision in the Act conferring a power of transfer or withdrawal of cases. Under S. 17(1)(b) of the Act, the State Commission is empowered to call for the records and pass appropriate order in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by the District Forum within the State appears to the State Commission that the District Forum "has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a Jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity".

IN the absence of any provision in the Act, about the transfer or withdrawal of a complaint pending before the District Forum, a complaint cannot be transferred or withdrawn. As stated above, the applicant has submitted a copy of the order of the District Forum, Tonk, refusing to transfer the case. Even, if this application is treated for revising the order, prayer made by the applicant cannot be accorded to, for, conditions mentioned in S. 17(1)(b) of the Act are not satisfied. There is no illegality or jurisdiction error in the order passed by the District Forum, Tonk. The apprehension of the applicant that he might not get justice for the reasons mentioned in the application is not well founded. In the facts and circumstances of the case the grounds mentioned in the application for transfer are not good and sufficient grounds for transfer of the complaint in question.

THE District Forum, Tonk comprises of (i) the District and Sessions Judge, Tonk (President) (ii) Shri Kapoor Chand Goyal, Advocate (member) & (iii) Sushri Usha Rajput, Advocate (Member). S. 14(2) of the Act is as under : "14(2) Every order made by the District Forum under sub-section (1) shall be signed by all the members constituting it and, if there is any difference of opinion, the order of the majority of the members constituting it shall be the order of the District Forum".

Even if what the applicant has said about Sushri Usha Rajput (member) for argument''s sake is assumed to be correct, still the order to be passed by the District Forum cannot be influenced by her. It is well settled that jurisdiction to transfer should be exercised with extreme caution and in this case it is not just and proper to transfer the complaint while even exercising revisional powers under S. 17(1)(b) of the Act against the order of the District Forum, Tonk.

IT is hoped that the District Forum, Tonk, will try, hear and decide the complaint in accordance with law uninfluenced by any irrelevant and extraneous consideration. Subject to the observations made hereinabove, the application shall stand dismissed. Application dismissed.