KAITHAL GAS SERVICE vs Shanti Devi

- FOR the limited purpose of determining the very maintainability of this appeal it is unnecessary to delve into the facts and merits too deeply.

IT suffices to mention that the respondent-consumer''s complaint was allowed by the District Forum by an order dated the 7th of July, 1993 granting the marginal relief of the release of a connection for cooking gas to the widow. M/s. Kaithal Gas Service having been duly served and put in appearance before the District Forum on the 18th of March had thereafter chosen not to participate in the proceedings and consequently the aforesaid order was passed against them. No appeal against the order dated 7th of July, 1993 was preferred within the prescribed period of limitation. However, belatedly an application was moved before the District Forum on the 5th of August, 1993 seeking to set aside what was alleged to be an ex-parte order. The District Forum in a considered order held that the grounds in the application were an after thought and totally unacceptable and dismissed the same with costs on the 9th of September, 1993. Thereafter the present purported appeal has been preferred on the 24th of September, 1993. Inevitably the threshold ground of its very maintainability arises as against the order dated 9th of September, 1993. It is somewhat patent that the substantive order of the District Forum had achieved finality because no appeal was preferred against the same within the prescribed period and it is patently time barred now and neither any application for the condonation of delay nor any affidavit to support the same as mandated by Rule 8 of the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules has been filed. The only question that survives is whether the appeal is maintainable against the dismissal of the application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 9th of September, 1993.

As the matter stand concluded by the consistent line of precedent of this Commission it is unnecessary to discuss it on first principle. Way back in II (1991) CPJ 429, Kohinoor Carpets, Panipat & Ors. v. Mr. Rajinder Arora the question of the maintainability of an appeal against and order under Section 27 had come up for consideration before this Commission. After an in-depth discussion of the matter it was held as under:- "To conclude, the answer to the question posed at the outset is rendered in the negative and it is held that no appeal under Section 15 lies against the imposition of penalty by the District Forum in exercise of its power under Section 27 above."

An analogous question more directly relevant then come up for consideration in I (1993) CPJ 339, J.S. Lakra v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Therein it was held as follows :- "To conclude, the answer to the question posed at the very outset, is therefore, rendered in the negative. It is held that no appeal under Section 15 of the Act lies against the order of the District Forum merely rejecting an application for restoration of a complaint dismissed in default earlier."

IN view of the above, it is somewhat obvious that an application for setting aside an ex-parte order would stand on an identical footing and no appeal against the same would be competent. It has, therefore, to be held that, the present appeal is plainly not maintainable and has to be dismissed on that ground. Mr. P.K. Jain, the learned Counsel for the appellant with great ability and persistence had then attempted to argue that the present appeal must be treated as a revision. Despite having heard the learned Counsel at great length, we are unable to find the least defect of jurisdiction or any material irregularity in the considered order of the District Forum. Consequently, no ground of interference under Section 17(b) of the Act appears possible either. Appeal dismissed.