Union of India vs Ganpat Singh

THIS is a revision against the order dated 24.8.2000 passed by District Consumer Forum, Udhamsingh Nagar, in Complaint Case No. 171/2000.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant Sri Ganpat Singh has lodged a complaint before the District Consumer Forum alleging that he has a telephone connection No. 74661. THE telephone bill of April, 1999 amounting to Rs. 210/- has been deposited. THE bill of September, 1999 was of the amount of Rs. 654/-. THE complainant lodged a complaint with the Telephone Department that the amount of bill was excessive. On assurance that the bills will be proportionately reduced both the amounts of bills were deposited. Again in February, 2000 a bill of Rs. 1, 399/- was received. In May, 2000 again the bill of Rs. 4,676/- was sent to the complainant. THE telephone was also disconnected by the Department. On the protest to the Department the appellant did not do anything nor informed the details of calls available to the complainant. THE complainant, therefore, lodged a claim before the District Consumer Forum for restoring the telephone connection and also prayed for reducing the amount of bill according to the calls made and a compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. During the hearing of the complaint case, the District Consumer Forum on 24.8.2000 passed an order that the complainant should deposit an amount of Rs. 1,500/- within seven days and directed the opposite party, Telephone Department to restore the telephone connection of the complainant and further directed that the next date of hearing would be 11.10.2000.

This revision has been directed against the above order of 24.8.2000.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist. A notice was issued to the opposite party, complainant in the month of March, 2001 but the same has not come back unserved, hence the service is presumed on the opposite party. The Consumer Protection Act does not empower the District Consumer Forum or the State Commission to issue any interim unless this power is specifically given under the Act. The District Consumer Forum cannot issue any interim injunction. No interim relief in the circumstances can be granted. The National Commission has also taken this view in the case of Delhi Development Authority v. K.N. Gupta, III (1994) CPJ 115 (NC). The Consumer Protection Act does not possess any power to pass interim orders granting interlocutory relief during the pendency of the original proceeding before the Forum. The District Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to pass this order. The revision is, therefore, liable to be allowed. ORDER The revision is allowed and the order dated 24.8.2000 passed by the District Consumer Forum during the course of hearing in Complaint Case No. 171/2000 is set aside. Let copy of this order be sent to the District Consumer Forum, Udhamsingh Nagar within one week from the date of this order and the Forum will then decide the case in accordance with the provisions of law. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Revision Petition allowed.