1996 2 CPC 284 ; 1996 1 CPJ 305 ; 1996 1 CPR 351
BIHAR STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PATNA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Sinha, President &
Mrs. Kalpana Ashok, Member
THE CHIEF MANAGER, UCO BANK—Appellant
versus
RAM GOVIND AGRAWAL—Respondent
Appeal No. 180 of 1992—Decided on 17.4.1995
Act Referred :CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT : S.13(2), S.15, S.13
(A) The case centers on the application of the Consumer Protection Act, specifically regarding the procedural limits of District Fora. The court examined Section 15 of the Act concerning the statutory period for filing appeals and the condonation of delay. A critical legal determination was made regarding the lack of inherent power under the Act for Redressal Agencies to recall or review their own ex-parte orders, as the Act does not explicitly grant such jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court analyzed the jurisdictional requirements for maintaining a complaint, emphasizing that the forum must have territorial jurisdiction over the opposite party or the cause of action.
(B) The core legal principles established are: (i) Redressal Agencies under the Consumer Protection Act lack the power to recall or review their own orders; (ii) A complaint is not maintainable if the claim has become stale due to excessive delay in filing; and (iii) Territorial jurisdiction is a prerequisite for the maintainability of a consumer complaint.
Facts of the case:
A consumer deposited a tax refund voucher with a bank to be credited to a current account. After alleging that the bank failed to credit the amount despite reminders, the consumer filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking the refund amount and compensation for deficiency in service. The District Forum initially passed an ex-parte order against the bank, which it later recalled upon the bank's application, eventually passing a final order in favor of the consumer.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the District Forum acted without jurisdiction by recalling its own ex-parte order. It further observed that the complaint was filed several years after the cause of action arose, rendering the claim stale. Additionally, since the bank and the transaction were located in a different district, the District Forum lacked territorial jurisdiction. The court also noted that the consumer failed to provide evidence to rebut the bank's claim that the voucher had been returned as out-of-date.
Issues:
1. Whether a District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act has the power to recall or review its own ex-parte order.
2. Whether the complaint was maintainable given the significant delay in filing (stale claim).
3. Whether the District Forum had territorial jurisdiction over the opposite party and the cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi:
The District Forum exceeded its jurisdiction by exercising a power of review/recall not vested in it by the Consumer Protection Act. Furthermore, a complaint cannot be entertained where there is no territorial nexus to the forum and where the claim is barred by laches (stale claim).
Result:
The appeal was allowed, the impugned order and the previous ex-parte order were set aside, the complaint was dismissed, and the respondent was ordered to pay costs to the appellant.
(A) The case centers on the application of the Consumer Protection Act, specifically regarding the procedural limits of District Fora. The court examined Section 15 of the Act concerning the statutory period for filing appeals and the condonation of delay. A critical legal determination was made regarding the lack of inherent power under the Act for Redressal Agencies to recall or review their own ex-parte orders, as the Act does not explicitly grant such jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court analyzed the jurisdictional requirements for maintaining a complaint, emphasizing that the forum must have territorial jurisdiction over the opposite party or the cause of action.
(B) The core legal principles established are: (i) Redressal Agencies under the Consumer Protection Act lack the power to recall or review their own orders; (ii) A complaint is not maintainable if the claim has become stale due to excessive delay in filing; and (iii) Territorial jurisdiction is a prerequisite for the maintainability of a consumer complaint.
Facts of the case:
A consumer deposited a tax refund voucher with a bank to be credited to a current account. After alleging that the bank failed to credit the amount despite reminders, the consumer filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking the refund amount and compensation for deficiency in service. The District Forum initially passed an ex-parte order against the bank, which it later recalled upon the bank's application, eventually passing a final order in favor of the consumer.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the District Forum acted without jurisdiction by recalling its own ex-parte order. It further observed that the complaint was filed several years after the cause of action arose, rendering the claim stale. Additionally, since the bank and the transaction were located in a different district, the District Forum lacked territorial jurisdiction. The court also noted that the consumer failed to provide evidence to rebut the bank's claim that the voucher had been returned as out-of-date.
Issues:
1. Whether a District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act has the power to recall or review its own ex-parte order.
2. Whether the complaint was maintainable given the significant delay in filing (stale claim).
3. Whether the District Forum had territorial jurisdiction over the opposite party and the cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi:
The District Forum exceeded its jurisdiction by exercising a power of review/recall not vested in it by the Consumer Protection Act. Furthermore, a complaint cannot be entertained where there is no territorial nexus to the forum and where the claim is barred by laches (stale claim).
Result:
The appeal was allowed, the impugned order and the previous ex-parte order were set aside, the complaint was dismissed, and the respondent was ordered to pay costs to the appellant.
Counsel for the parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Chandra Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Jagdish Prasad, AlA.
ORDER
Mr. Justice B.N. Sinha, President—This appeal is directed against order dated 5th August, 1992 passed by the District Forum, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No. 91 of 1991 in which the appellant here was the opposite party and the respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum.
2. The facts of the case as put forth by the complainant may be briefly noticed. The complainant has a Current Account No. 1551, Folio No. 149 in the UCO Bank at Ranchi — the opposite party. The complainant is a IncomeTax Assessee and a resident of District Dhanbad. He received a refund order/voucher for Rs. 5,640/- from the Income-tax Department in respect of excess payment made by him towards his income tax. He deposited the refund voucher with the UCO Bank-the opposite party at Ranchi on 17.7.84 to be credited in his current account after being collected from the State Bank of India, Ranchi. But even after several reminders made by the complainant, no reply was received nor the amount under said refund vocucher was credited in his current account and therefore he presented complaint before the District Forum, Dhanbad on 9.5.91 praying for payment of the amount of refund voucher and for compensation for the loss caused to him due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Bankopposite party.
3. It appears from the order sheet of the case before the District Forum that notices were sent to the opposite party but the opposite party did not appear and consequently by order dated 14.8.91 the case was decided by the District Forum directing the Bank to pay Rs. 5000.00 to the complainant as compensation besides Rs. 5,640.00 the amount of the refund voucher with 18% interest thereon. It appears from the order dated 3.10.91 in the case that the opposite party filed an application before the District Forum for recall of the order dated 14.8.91 and this application was dismissed by the District Forum. Subsequent thereto later on at 2 p.m. on the same date, i.e., on 3.10.91 the learned Advocate of tine opposite party appeared and prayed for recall of the order passed and disposed of the case on merit after hearing both the parties. This prayer was allowed and after hearing both the parties the impugned order dated 5.8.92 was passed by the District Forum.
4. Because the memo of appeal could not be presented before this Commission within thirty days from the date of the impugned order, an application under Rule 8(4) of the Bihar Consumer Protection Rules has been filed by the complainant stating the circumstances under which the memo of appeal could not be presented within the period prescribed u/Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act) for filing appeals before this Commission. It has been stated by the appellant that the impugned order was not passed in presence of the parties and the copy of the order of the Forum could be available to the appellant on 24.8.92 and within thirty days thereof the memo of appeal has been presented before this Commission. This plea of the appellant is supported by the endorsement made at the foot of the impugned order. Hence the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is being decided on merit.
5. At the very outset it may be mentioned that the entire proceeding was conducted by the District Forum in utter contravention of the provisions of the Act. The District Forum was not justified in recalling its ex-parte order dated 14.8.91 because the Act does not empower the different Redressal Agencies under the Act to recall or review its ex-parte order or restore the case dismissed for default.
6. It is evident from the facts stated above that the refund order was presented before the Bank by the complainant on 17.7.84. But the case was filed before the District Forum on 2.4.91. On the date the case was presented before the District Forum, the claim of the complainant had become stale. Hence the complaint was not maintainable.
7. Moreover, it appears that the opposite party is situated at Ranchi where the refund voucher drawn on State Bank of India, Ranchi Branch was presented by the complainant for collecting the amount and crediting it in his account in the opposite party-Bank at Ranchi and therefore the Dhanbad District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this case, because the opposite party is not located within its jurisdiction nor any part of cause of action had arisen within its jurisdiction.
8. It may be further noticed that the opposite party in its application filed before the District Forum for recall of its order dated 14.8.91 averred that the voucher deposited by the complainant in the Bank on 17.7.84 was returned on 18.7.84 by the State Bank of India on the ground that the cheque is out of date” and that by its letter dated 4.8.84 it returned the voucher to the complainant by his Ranchi address. Thus the allegations made by the complainant were disputed and denied by the opposite party, but no evidence was adduced by the complainant in support of his case.
For these reasons, we find that the impugned order passed by the District Forum can not be sustained. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside.
For the reasons mentioned above, the ex-parte order dated 14.8.91 is also being set aside u/Section 17(b) of the Act as the District Forum exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law. The complaint is dismissed.
The respondent is directed to pay Rs. 500/- as cost to the appellant.
Appeal allowed.