TARSEM LAL GOYAL vs Union of India

IT appears that the petitioner in this case had filed a complaint before the District Forum, complaining against the disputed bill. Prayer was made on behalf of the complainant to direct the opposite-parties not to disconnect his telephone connection and consequently, the impugned order dated 16.10.1991 was passed by the District Forum, Bathinda. By this order, the Telephone Department was directed to restore the telephone connection of the complainant provided he had paid the bills of the telephone.

THE complainant has challenged the jurisdiction of the District Forum for passing the impugned order. We find substance in the point being taken on behalf of the revision-petitioner. THE reliefs which can be granted by the Consumer Courts under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ''the Act'') to a "Consumer" are mentioned in Section 14(1) of the Act. No relief beyond that Section can be granted to a "Consumer" under the Act. THE National Commission in AP State Electricity Board v. AP State Electricity Consumer Association, I (1992) CPJ 148 (NC) has very clearly stated that no Consumer Court can grant any relief to a consumer beyond the provisions of Section 14(i) of the Act and that the Consumer Court cannot pass any order directing to do something or to desist from doing something. Since the impugned order passed by the District Forum is beyond the power given to the Consumer Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained. THE petitioner has prayed that his complaint may be withdrawn from the District Forum, Bathinda and transferred to another District Forum. But we find not enough merit in this request for transfer, which is hereby declined. This revision petition is consequently allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The District Forum is, however, directed to proceed further without any loss of time with the complaint case No. 178 of 1991, pending therein and dispose of the same expeditiously. Revision Petition allowed.