R.K.BATRA vs V.P.NAUTIYAL

THIS is an appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Pauri Garhwal dated December 9,1993. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows :

THE appellant, Sri R.K. Batra, filed a complaint against the Executive Engineer, UPSEB, Srinagar, Garhwal on 20.7.1993. THE complaint was filed as Case No. 128/1993. THE case was heard by President of the Forum Sri K.K. Agarwal and Member Smt. Meena Rawat. THE complaint was heard and the judgment was pronounced in the open Court on 28.6.1993. On 27.6.1993 the judgment was dictated and typed, but on 28.6.1993 it was signed by the President of the Forum and was not signed by Smt. Meena Rawat, the Member. THE Peshkar of the Forum gave the copy of the judgment, which was not signed by Smt. Meena Rawat till 6.7.1993. After some time the original judgment was checked. THEre was signature of both the members of the Forum, Smt. Meena Rawat and another member Sri V.P. Nautiyal, whereas the case was heard on 26.6.1993 when the President of the Forum Sri K.K. Agarwal and Smt. Meena Rawat were present. Sri V.P. Nautiyal, the Member, could not come on that date because of serious illness of his wife. Thus the judgment was signed on the date fixed for pronouncing the same, on 28.6.1993 but was not signed by Smt. Meena Rawat till 6.7.1993 and thereafter the Bench of the District Forum made a conspiracy and put the signature after 6.7.1993. Thus the Members were not entitled to get the wages for the above period and both the Members committed sin. THE appellant has, therefore, prayed that the above order of the District Forum may be set aside and the case be handed over to CBI for enquiry, as also the case should be transferred to some other District Forum. Notice of appeal were sent to respondents who did not turn up.

The appellant filed the affidavit. Alongwith his affidavit he made certain allegations in appeal. He also filed a copy of the order passed by the District Forum dated 9.12.1993. This order of the District Forum also deals with the allegations contained in the appeal. It is clear that the appellant has moved before the District Forum a request to cancel the orders of the Forum which were passed on 26.6.1993 and 28.6.1993, in Complaint No. 128/93 and reject fraudulent order passed by the Hon''ble Members of the Forum. The Learned District Forum in the order dated 9.12.1993 rejected the application of the appellant and it was observed that District Forum was not a proper Forum for filing such cases and appellant could seek remedy by getting a writ issued in his favour or file a regular civil suit in the Civil Court and the complaint was not maintainable.

WE have gone through the entire records placed on the file. Except for the appeal, affidavit and order dated 9.12.1993 of the District Forum, Pauri Garhwal, no other significant papers have been filed by the appellant. Not even judgment and papers relating to the Complaint Case No. 128/1993 have been filed by the appellant. WE have also heard the appellant in person. Basic issue involved is that the appellant has tried to bring in his appeal the alleged misconduct of the Members of the Forum and an enquiry thereon. Such matters cannot be decided in appeal as provided under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act. If the order in Complaint Case No. 128/1993 was to be challenged, then the same should have been questioned and as discussed above, the concerned order has not been filed by the appellant. He has only taken recourse to pray in his appeal to set aside the order dated 9.12.1993 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Pauri Garhwal. Obviously, Sri R.K. Batra, the appellant did not seek any relief as a consumer. He has rather challenged the powers of the Members or the President of the District Forum and pointed out certain irregularities and illegalities. These aspects have also been dealt with sufficiently by the District Consumer Forum in their order dated 9.12.1993. Since the contents of the appeal are absolutely not in the nature of seeking any relief as a consumer and they only seek remedial action against the alleged misconduct of the members of the District Consumer Forum, the appeal certainly does not lie before the State Commission. The remedy lies elsewhere. The appeal is, therefore, not maintainable. ORDER The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable and the order of the District Consumer Forum dated 9.12.1993 is upheld. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.