USHA RECTIFIER CORPORATION (I) LTD. vs R.KRISHNASWAMY

THESE two Revision Petitions arise out of two identically worded orders passed by the State Commission of Tamil Nadu at Madras in two connected matters that had arisen between the same parties.

THE cases originated in two complaint petitions filed before the District Forum Coimbatore, by the common respondent in these two Revision Petitions. The District Forum passed ex-parte orders in the two complaint petitions on the basis that the Respondents despite having been duly served, had failed to appear before it. The Revision Petitioners feeling aggrieved by the orders so passed by the District Forum, filed appeals before the State Commission, Tamil Nadu. Those appeals were preferred beyond the period of limitation by a few days. The explanation given by the Revision Petitioners was that they had come to know of the ex-parte orders having been passed by the District Forum only when they had received the copies of the orders of the District Forum. The State Commission was not convinced with the said explanation and dismissed the appeals on the ground that they were time barred. Though we have serious doubts about the correctness of the approach made by the State Commission in dealing with the petition filed for condonation of delay in filing of the appeals, it is unnecessary for us to go deeper into the matter for the simple reason that the exparte orders passed by the District Forum in this case were totally null and void since the grievances put forward by the complainant before the District Forum in the two complaint petitions does not constitute a consumer dispute at all as defined in the Act. The complainant had applied for the allotment of certain shares from the Respondent-Company and his grievances was that the shares had not been allotted to him notwithstanding his having remitted the requisite amount to qualify for allotment. Even if this allegation of fact is to be assumed as correct, there was no arrangement of hiring of service for consideration between the complainant and the Opposite Party Company so as to warrant the filing of a Consumer Complaint on the ground of deficiency in service. This position is placed beyond doubt by the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Morgan Stanely Mutual Fund v. Kartick Dass and Dr. Arvind Gupta v. Securities and Exchange Board of India and Others, II (1994) CPJ 7. In the circumstances, even if the appeals were presented out of time the State Commission, on its having come to know of such illegal and void orders having been passed by the District Forum it was the bounden duty of the State Commission to have taken up these matters in suo motu revision and set aside the orders. Inasmuch as this has not been done, we consider that there was clearly a material irregularity committed by the State Commission which calls for interference at the hands of this Commission. We accordingly allow these Revision Petitions, set aside the orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum and direct that the complaint petitions shall stand dismissed. The Parties will bear their respective costs.