Union of India vs ROSSELL INDUSTRIES LTD.

THIS revision is directed against the order dated 8.2.96 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dibrugarh in C.P. Case No. 13/96 granting interim relief by way of directing the revision petitioners to restore telephone No. DR 21288 of the opposite party/complainant and also restraining them from disconnecting working telephone No. DR 20608 of the opposite party/ complainant till disposal of the complaint, subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/-.

FOR non-payment of certain bills, Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 disconnected telephone No. DR 21288 of the opposite party/complainant on 14.7.94. They also issued notice for initiating action under Rule 443 of the Indian Telephone Rules, 1951 to disconnect the other working telephone No. 20608. Being aggrieved, the Opposite party/complainant filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal FORum, Dibrugarh, along with others, praying for interim relief and the District FORum granted interim relief as aforesaid. Hence the present petition. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. C. Baruah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party.

The contention of Mr. Choudhury was that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to pass an order granting interim relief under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, direction given by the District Forum to restore telephone No. DR 21288 and also restraining the petitioners from taking any action under Rule 443 of the Rule pending disposal of the complaint were illegal, without jurisdiction and also contrary to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Drawing our attention to Section 14 of the Act, Mr. Choudhury submitted that no interim order could be passed under the Act. Any order mentioned in Section 14(1)(a) to (i) could be passed only after conclusion of the proceeding under the Act. In this connection Mr. Choudhury also drew our attention to a decision of the Apex Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, reported in II (1994) CPJ 7 (SC)=(1994) 4 SCC 225. In the said case the Apex Court held thus - "A careful reading of the above discloses that there is no power under the Act to grant any interim relief of (sic or) even an ad interim relief. Only a final relief could be granted. If the jurisdiction of the Forum to grant relief is confined to the four clauses mentioned under Section 14, it passes our comprehension as to how an interim injunction could ever be granted disregarding even the balance of convenience."

Regarding the restriction put by the District Forum on the petitioners from disconnecting the working telephone No. DR 20608 till disposal of the complaint, Mr. Choudhury drew our attention to a decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in General Manager, Telephones, Faridabad v D.K. Singh, II (1995) CPJ 211 (NC). In this case the National Commission held thus :- " This Commission has held that Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules specifically entitled the department to disconnect the telephone without any notice once the bill has been served and there has been a default in payment of such bill. Following those rulings, we hold that the directions issued to the telephone department by the State Commission in its impugned order are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and they are hereby set aside. We hold that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the department in disconnecting of the telephone of the complainant on the ground of non-payment of the bill issued to him. The District Forum had acted wholly without any jurisdiction or legal warrant in directing Revision Petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- by way of compensation to the complainant "

MR. C. Baruah, learned Counsel appeariiig on behalf of the opposite party/complainant, on the other hand, submitted that the Apex Court had no occasion to consider Clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act inasmuch as this clause was inserted after the judgment in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund (supra). Therefore, according to MR. Baruah, Section 14 of the Act empowers the State Commission or the District Forum to pass an order granting interim relief in appropriate cases. In this connection MR. Baruah relied on a decision of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Suhasaria Oil & Rice Mills, reported in I (1995) CPJ 279 and submitted that in the said case the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission distinguished the decision of the Apex Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund (supra). We have given serious consideration to the above decisions and with all respect we are unable to agree with the views expressed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in West Bengal State Electricity Board (supra). It is true that Clause (e) was inserted later, but Clause (e) is also dependent on Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. Subsection (1) of Section 14 begins thus - "If, after the proceedings conducted...." It is thus clear that whatsoever power is there under Clause (e) of Section 14(1) is dependent on the above expression. Therefore, relying on the decision of the Apex Court and followed by the National Commission we are of opinion that the District Forum could not have passed an order granting interim relief. Regarding initiation of proceeding under Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules also, the position has been settled by the aforesaid decision of the National Commission. Besides, it is an admitted fact that the State Commission or the District Forum is not Court and, therefore, the State Commission or the District Forum has no inherent power. If the statute does not provide for any provision for granting interim relief, the State Commission or the District Forum does not have any power to grant interim relief.

IN view of the above, we find sufficient force in the submission of Mr. Choudhury. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the District Forum so far granting of interim relief is set aside. As the matter is pending for a long time, the District Forum is directed to dispose of the complaint as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Send down the case records immediately. Revision petition allowed.