PAL PEUGEOT LTD. vs GORA MAL HARI RAM

BROAD facts of the case are that a number of persons who had booked the order for Peugeot 309 cars and deposited Rs. 25,000/- each on account of the booking. The cars were not delivered in time and those persons cancelled the booking and claimed refund of the amount alongwith interest, etc.

HAVING failed to receive the refund, they approached District Forum-II by separate complaints. Some more persons joined them with the same grievance lateron and the total number of such complainants became 249. Impleaded as opposite parties were M/s. Pal Peugeot Ltd. and Prem Nath and Sons Pvt. Ltd. as opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 respectively. The District Forum directed the Managing Director and in his absence the man next in position to appear before it on 3.6.1998 to make a definite statement with regard to repayment. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite parties have preferred this appeal.

We have heard Mr. Meet Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. T.C. Sanduja for the respondents and have carefully gone through the records including the written notes submitted by Mr. Sanduja. The grounds urged by the appellants are: (i) That the respondents are not covered under the definition of consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act and the District Forum had, therefore, no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute/complaint. (ii) That the direction to the MD to appear in person at this stage was beyond the powers vested in the Fora under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. (iii) By passing the aforesaid, the District Forum was pressuring the opposite party to refund the amount otherwise than by normal procedure laid down by law.

ACCORDING to Mr. T.C. Sanduja, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, the order in question is only an interlocutory in nature as distinguished from a final order and no appeal was maintainable there against. It has further been contended that no objection having yet been taken in the written statement (which has not so far been filed), no such contention could be raised. We had occasion to examine the question whether booking of an order and failure to receive the refund upon cancellation disclosed a consumer dispute. For detailed reasons given in our order in M/s. Shipani Automobiles Ltd. v. Tej Bahadur Jain, A-57/97 decided on 28.8.1997 reported in=II (1998) CPJ 77, it was held that such facts did disclose a consumer dispute. Amongst others M. Narasimhan Reddy v. MD, Maruti Udyog Ltd., II (1991) CPJ 346 (NC), relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondents was duly considered and dealt with in the aforesaid decision by this Commission. With regard to the contention of the respondents that the appeal is not maintainable, we consider it sufficient to point out that this Commission has adequate revisionary powers and the present appeal can be and is treated as a revision against the order passed by the District Forum.

REMAINING question is whether the order, in the facts and circumstances of the case, discloses material irregularities in the exercise of the jurisdiction by the District Forum. Admittedly, written version of the opposite parties has not yet been filed. In fact in some of the connected complaints even notice was not issued when the opposite parties entered appearance through lawyer. Though the Forum may be presumed to have adequate powers to direct the parties to attend in person, the present case is not covered under any of those eventualities. For instance, parties can be summoned to clarify or elucidate pleadings the parties could be called to admit or deny certain writing or signatures and so on. No such case had been made out. Even written statement had not been filed. Even if it is assumed that the District Forum had the power to direct the MD to appear in person, no case for such a direction was made out and we are, therefore, clearly of the view that the passing of the direction amounts to an exercise of the jurisdiction with material irregularity. We, therefore, allow the appeal/revision, set aside the order. The District Forum shall have the written version of the respondents and proceed to deal with the matter according to law. The parties directed to appear before the District Forum for further proceedings according to law. A copy of the order be conveyed to both sides as well as District Forum-II. Order set aside.