RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs DUNGER CHAND

THIS Revision Petition arises out a complaint petition filed before the District Forum, Barmer, Camp at Balotra, Rajasthan. The grievance of the Complainant was that the Revision Petitioner-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation had fixed the fares for their transport buses by adopting arbitrary criteria for fixation of fares. The District Forum set out the question arising for determination by it as under; "From where should the distance be measured between the two places for the purposes of fixation of fares ?"

IT then proceeded to consider the said question and passed an order directing that "henceforth the fare for the distance between Balotra to Siwana be charged at Rs. 5.50 for ordinary bus and Rs. 7/- for express bus."

Being aggrieved by the said Order passed by the District Forum and questioning the very jurisdiction of the District Forum to adjudicate upon the question passed by it in its order, the Revision Petitioner-Corporation preferred an appeal before the State Commission, Rajasthan. That appeal was filed beyond the period of Limitation by 57 days and the appeal memorandum was, therefore, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in which certain reasons were set out on the part of the Appellant. The State Commission dismissed the appeal on the ground of its being barred by limitation after rejecting the application for condonation of delay. This Revision Petition has been filed as against the Order so passed by the State Commission.

WE are not inclined to go into the correctness or otherwise of the exercise of discretion by the State Commission in the matter of condonation of delay because that being a question involving jurisdiction there is no scope for interference by this Commission in such matter. However, we are clearly of the view that even if the appeal was barred by time, a case where the Order passed by the District Forum is found to be totally without jurisdiction and manifestly illegal, there was a duty cast on the State Commission under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act to suo-motu take up the matter in revision and set aside the illegal Order passed by the District Forum without jurisdiction. In the present case the Order passed by the District Forum was manifestly without jurisdiction since the fixation of the fare for the State carriage vehicles as between two points is not a matter falling within the purview of adjudication under the Consumer Protection Act and the relief granted by the District Forum under its impugned Order does not at all come within the scope of Section 14 of the said Act. Hence we are clearly of opinion that the State Commission ought to have suo motu taken up the matter in revision and set aside the Order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the complaint petition. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the State Commission and the District Forum and direct that the complaint petition shall stand dismissed. Inasmuch as the appeal filed by Revision Petitioner herein before the State Commission was hopelessly time barred, we think that it is only just and proper that the Revision Petitioner should be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- by way of costs the Respondent''s Counsel. This shall be paid within a period of one month from today.