PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A And E) I vs Jai Lal

THIS is a revision against the judgment and order dated 8.9.2000 passed by District Consumer Forum, Chamoli in Complaint Case No. 27 of 2000

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant retired from the post of Senior Administrative Officer on 31.5.1998. At that time a sum of Rs. 1,28,238/- was due on account of gratuity and a sum of Rs. 1,07,868/- on account of arrears of G.P.F. but the department in October, 1998 had released a sum of Rs. 99,495/- on account of arrears of gratuity and Rs. 97,081/- on account of G.P.F. in June, 1998. THE rest of the amount of gratuity and G.P.F. has not been paid so far inspite of several reminders. THE complainant is entitled for these amounts along with interest. Notice was sent to the opposite party by registered post by the District Forum but none on behalf of the Accountant General appeared. Hence the claim was decided ex-parte.

After considering the evidence filed by the complainant, the learned District Forum directed the Accountant General to pay a sum of Rs. 28,743/- on account of gratuity and a sum of Rs. 7,528/- on account of arrears of G.P.F. along with 12% per annum interest.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the learned District Forum, the opposite party, Principal Accountant General-I, has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Forum. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent that no revision lies against the final order and only an appeal lie against the final order. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has argued that a revision will lie because the matter relates to jurisdiction which has been wrongly decided by the learned District Forum. According to the learned Counsel the appeal will lie only when a judgment is delivered on merits.

A perusal of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ''Act'') will go to show that an appeal lies under Section 15 of the said Act. This section is reproduced below for the sake of convenience : "15. Appeal-Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed : Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period."

A perusal of this section will go to show that an appeal can be filed by a person who is aggrieved of an order of the District Forum. In the present case the matter has been finally disposed off by the learned District Forum and the complaint has been decreed. The final order has been made and the only course left for a party is to file an appeal whether in the complaint the question of jurisdiction has been decided or not. Even if the question of jurisdiction which is raised before the District Forum has been negatived and the matter has been decided on merits, then only an appeal will lie and no revision will lie in such a situation. Section 17 Sub-clause ''B'' of the Act deals with jurisdiction of the State Commission which is reproduced for the sake of convenience : "Jurisdiction of the State Commission-Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction- (a) .......................................... (b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity."

A perusal of it goes to show that if in a case pending before or decided by the District Forum it appears to the State Commission that the District Forum has not exercised the jurisdiction vested in it or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction not vested in it, or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the State Commission shall have the jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders. In the present case it goes to show that the power is vested with the State Commission to call for the records from the District Forum, in the circumstances mentioned above and to pass appropriate orders. The party has been given a right to raise this question but the party has no right to file a revision against an order in which an appeal lies. Therefore, in view of the fact the department should have filed an appeal and not a revision. In view of this matter, this revision is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The revision is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. Let compliance of the order be made within a period of two months from today. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Revision Petition dismissed.