Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 211 (UTT)

CENTRE MANAGER, NOKIA CARE CENTRE v. MONIKA WALIA

2013-04-22

B.C.Kandpal, C.C.Pant, Kusumlata Sharma

body2013
ORDER Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President (Oral): Heard learned counsel for the revisionist at admission stage. 2. This revision petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the order dated 16.04.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 290 of 2012, whereby the District Forum has recalled its order dated 08.03.2013 to proceed ex-parte against the revisionist on costs of Rs. 1,000/- and directed the revisionist to file the written statement by 18.04.2013. 3. The respondent – complainant has filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, praying therein that the opposite parties be directed to give her another mobile handset in place of the mobile handset in question or lieu thereof, to refund the price of the mobile handset together with interest and has also sought ancillary reliefs. 4. The revisionist – opposite party No. 2 moved an application dated 13.02.2013 before the District Forum, stating therein that the complainant be directed to deposit the mobile handset in question before the District Forum, so that the revisionist may get the same examined through an expert. The said application was allowed by the District Forum vide order dated 13.02.2013 and the revisionist was directed to file the written statement on 08.03.2013. On 08.03.2013, neither the respondent, nor the revisionist appeared before the District Forum and no written statement was also filed by the revisionist and, therefore, the District Forum directed the consumer complaint to proceed ex-parte against the revisionist and 16.04.2013 was fixed for the evidence of the respondent. Thereafter, the revisionist moved an application before the District Forum on 16.04.2013, to recall its order dated 08.03.2013. The said application was allowed by the District Forum vide impugned order dated 16.04.2013 on costs of Rs. 1,000/-. The revisionist felt aggrieved by the impugned order on the ground that the respondent has not yet deposited the mobile handset in question and inspite of that, the District Forum has directed the revisionist to file the written statement. The revisionist has, thus, filed the present revision petition. 5. We may state at the outset that there is no force in this revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. The revisionist has, thus, filed the present revision petition. 5. We may state at the outset that there is no force in this revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. The reason being that the order to proceed ex-parte against the revisionist was passed by the District Forum on 08.03.2013 and the recall application was moved by the revisionist on 16.04.2013 after a period of more than one month. It is true that the application moved by the revisionist so as to direct the respondent – complainant to deposit the mobile handset in question was allowed by the District Forum and the respondent has not deposited the mobile handset in question before the District Forum, but for that, the respondent has to face consequences and the District Forum has also not recalled its said order and hence it can not be said that any jurisdictional or legal error has been made by the District Forum vide impugned order. 6. This apart, the powers of the State Commission, while deciding the revision petition, are very limited. It is well settled that the powers of this Commission as a Revisional Court are very limited and have to be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; II (2011) CPJ 19 (SC) = IV (2011) SLT 303 = 2011 (3) Scale 654, has observed as under: “Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion, there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction, conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora.” 7. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown in the impugned order to call for any interference for exercising power under the revisional jurisdiction and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. In view of what has been stated above, revision petition is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs.