V. NAGARAJAN vs S.M.GOVINDHASAMY

THIS revision has come up for admission before us today. The facts leading to the filing of this revision may in brevity be stated for understanding the crux of the issue arising for consideration in this action.

ONE S.M. Govindhasamy, Secretary, Human Welfare and Development Centre, Chottaiyanpalayam, R.N. Pudur Post, Erode-638 005, instituted a complaint in O.P. 162/1999 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Erode, impleading the opposite parties as below : (1) V. Nagarajan, Prop. Sri Bagyalakshmi Transports Managing Partner, No. 53, Agrahara Street, Erode - 638 001. (2) District Collector, Salem. (3) Regional Transport Officer, Salem-636 007.

The 1st opposite party V. Nagarajan, entered appearance and filed his version. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties namely District Collector, Salem and Regional Transport Officer, despite service of summon, did not at all enter appearance and virtually remained absent. When the matter was posted for enquiry before the Forum below, neither the 1st opposite party nor his Counsel was present and consequently the Forum below passed an order on merits on 12.12.2000 after taking into consideration the materials placed on record.

The 1st opposite party figuring as a petitioner filed C.M.P. 371/1999 to set aside the ex-parte order dated 10.11.1999 passed by the Forum below. The petition so filed had been allowed by the Forum below on payment of cost of Rs. 50/- by the petitioner/1st opposite party to the complainant/respondent therein on or before 21.6.2000 or otherwise the petition shall stand dismissed.

THE 1st opposite party/petitioner did not make the payment as ordered by the Forum below and consequently the petition in C.M.P. 371/1999 was dismissed on 22.6.2000. Aggrieved by the order as above, the petitioner/1st opposite party filed C.M.P. 93/2000 for the restoration of the C.M.P. 371/1999 which was dismissed for non-payment of the cost as ordered by the Forum below. The said C.M.P. namely 93/2000 was dismissed on 30.8.2000 by the Forum below.

AGGRIEVED by the order as above, the petitioner/1st opposite party resorted to the present action. We heard the arguments of learned Counsel Danalakshmi, representing learned Counsel M.M. Sundaresh, V. Bharathidasan and Suba Sundaresh, appearing for the revision petitioner/1st opposite party. Even at the outset, we may point out that there are absolutely no merits for the entertainment of this revision on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the Forum below passed an ex-parte order on merits on 12.12.2000. Once the Forum below passes the order in the original petition, ex-parte or otherwise on merits, it goes without saying the Forum below becomes functus officio on and from the date of pronouncement of the order in the sense of terminating the proceedings once and for all before the said Forum. As against such an order, the aggrieved party like the revision petitioner/1st opposite party is entitled to file a revision before this Commission only under Section 15 of the Act. He had admittedly not done so. What he had done was that he filed, as already indicated an application in C.M.P. 371/1999 to set aside the ex-parte order passed on merits. The Forum below oblivious of the legal provision initially set aside the ex-parte order passed on merits by payment of cost of Rs. 50/- by the revision petitioner/1st opposite party to the complainant on or before a specified date. The revision petitioner/1st opposite party did not at all pay the said amount as ordered by the Forum below. Consequently, the Forum below dismissed the said application. Thereafter, the revision petitioner/1st opposite party filed C.M.P. 93/2000 for the restoration of the earlier petition in C.M.P. 371/1999 which was dismissed for non-payment of the cost as ordered by the Forum below. The present revision is admittedly against the dismissal of the C.M.P. 93/2000.

WE are of the view that the Forum below is not having the necessary and requisite power to take it on file C.M.P. 371/1999 or C.M.P. 93/2000. The entertainment of those Civil Miscellaneous Petitions by the Forum below and passing orders on merits is nothing but the resultant product of the ignorance of the Forum below as respects the legal position obtaining as of now in respect of such aspects of the matter. The exercise of jurisdiction by the Forum below in entertaining those civil miscellaneous applications is of course exercise of jurisdiction not vested in it. Therefore, the orders passed by the Forum below in those civil miscellaneous petitions are of no consequence, when especially the order passed in the original action remains undisturbed. Such being the case, the revision petitioner/1st opposite party is not entitled to knock at the doors of this Commission invoking the power of revision under Section 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short, "the Act"].

THE revision petition filed as such deserves to be dismissed in limine and we accordingly do so. Revision Petition dismissed.