STATE COMMISSION, DELHI vs RAM SINGH PATHAK

IT has been brought to our notice that one of our District Forums, very recently, vide order dated 2.2.1999, passed in Complaint Case No. 41/98 - entitled Shri Ram Singh Pathak v. Dagar Gas Service & Ors., has directed the respondents to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards damages for mental agony, caused to the complainant and Rs. 500/- towards costs. In the above said case, the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the MRTP Commission'') has been arrayed as one of the opposite parties (opposite party No. 3).

ON coming to know the above facts, this Commission sent for the records of the District Forum, relating to the abovesaid case and perused the same. ON a perusal of order dated 2.2.1999, passed in the abovesaid case, it was noticed by this Commission that the operative part of the order of the District Forum directed the respondents, including the MRTP Commission (opposite party No. 3) to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony caused to him together with Rs. 500/- on account of cost of litigation. In our opinion, the MRTP Commission, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was neither a ''necessary'' nor a ''proper party'' and prima facie, the District Forum, while passing the abovesaid order. In so far as the MRTP Commission is concerned, had exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law and had acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and, with material irregularity.

In view of the position explained above, this Commission, in exercise of powers under Section 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'') took suo motu cognizance of the matter and issued notices to the parties, other than MRTP Commission (opposite party No. 3).

IN pursuance of the notice issued by this Commission, the Authorised Representative of the complainant Shri Ram Singh Pathak appeared on and stated that insofar as the present revision is concerned he has not to file any reply. However, none appeared on behalf of Dagar Gas Service and O.I.C. Customers Service Cell, I.O.C. Limited and the abovesaid respondents were, therefore, proceeded ex-parte in these proceedings. In the present case, the complainant Shri Ram Singh Pathak had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring that he had applied for a Gas Connection and with reference to his application, he was informed that his booking had matured and he was directed to contact Dagar Gas Service (opposite party No. 1) with the proof of his residence and the Booking Slip. The case of the complainant Shri Ram Singh Pathak, before the District Forum was that on receipt of the above intimation, he visited the showroom-cum-office of opposite party No. 1 alongwith the requisite documents and requested opposite party No. 1 to accept the inspection charges. However, the employees of Dagar Gas Service (opposite party No. 1) refused to accept the inspection charges and informed the complainant that neither the inspection charges would be accepted nor the LPG Connection would be granted till the complainant purchased a Hot Plate from the Distributor (opposite party No. 1). The grievance of the complainant, in the complainant filed before the District Forum, was that despite repeated requests/reminders, opposite party No. 1, neither accepted the inspection charges nor issued LPG Connection in his favour and even opposite party No. 2, took no action in the matter on his complaints/representations. The complainant filed the complaint with the prayer that opposite party No. 1 be directed to accept the inspection charges and to release the LPG Connection in his favour at the earliest. It was also prayed that a suitable amount be awarded to the complainant on account of damages suffered by him due to the negligence, unwarranted and unlawful conduct of the opposite parties.

THE claim of the complainant, in the District Forum, was contested only by opposite party No. 1 who filed a written version denying the allegations. During the pendency of the complaint, opposite party No. 1, released the LPG Connection in favour of the complainant on 17.11.1998. THE District Forum, vide order dated 2.2.1999, directed the respondents, including respondent No. 3, MRTP Commission, to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards damages and Rs. 500/- towards costs. We have heard the authorised representative of the complainant who appeared before us on and have also carefully gone through the record of the District Forum relating to Complaint Case No. 41-98 entitled - Shri Ram Singh Pathak v. Dagar Gas Service & Ors. On a perusal of the complaint filed by the said Shri Ram Singh Pathak before the District Forum, it is apparent that neither any relief was claimed against the MRTP Commission nor any reference had been made to the above said Body in the entire complaint and as such, in our opinion, the MRTP Commission, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was neither a ''proper'' nor a ''necessary'' party in those proceedings (Complaint Case No. 41 /98). As a matter of fact, the said Body should not have been impleaded as one of the opposite parties and even if impleaded, should have been ordered to be deleted from the array of parties, which unfortunately was not done. Legally speaking, the MRTP Commission, established under Section 5 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ''the MRTP Act'') is a ''Judicial Authority''. The above said Judicial Authority, as per settled law, culled out from various judicial decisions, is amenable only to the jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and to the appellate jurisdiction of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India under Section 55 of the MRTP Act. No other judicial or quasi-judicial authority is empowered to exercise any jurisdiction over the MRTP Commission. Moreover, Section 64 of the MRTP Act, specifically provides that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Commission or any Member, Officer or the servants of the Commission, the Director General or any member of the staff of the Director General in respect of anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under the MRTP Act.

IN view of the legal position explained above, in our opinion, the order dated 2.2.1999 passed by the District Forum in Complaint Case No. 41/98 entitled-Shri Ram Singh Pathak v. M/s. Dagar Gas Service & Ors., insofar as MRTP Commission (opposite party No. 3) is concerned is not in a position to sustain the test of judicial scrutiny and, therefore, is liable to be quashed. The District Forum, while passing the above said order decidedly has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law and has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally with material irregularity.

FOR the above reasons, the above said order passed by District FORum in Complaint Case No. 41/98 entitled-Shri Ram Singh Pathak v. M/s. Dagar Gas Service & Ors., is set aside in sofar as the MRTP Commission (opposite party No. 3) is concerned. The order passed by the District FORum in the above said case is modified to the above extent. In exercise of powers under Section 24-B of the Act, it is further directed that a copy of this order be forwarded to all the District FORums, functioning in the Union Territory of Delhi, for their guidance. Petition disposed of.