A.K. Jain vs Shivam Communication

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner A.K.Jain against the order dated 29.10.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal No.293/14.

Brief facts relevant for disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner filed a consumer complaint bearing No.59/2012 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, East Delhi (in short 'the District Forum'), which was allowed by the District Forum vide its order dated 24.9.2013 against all the opposite parties. One of the opposite parties preferred appeal before the State Commission being FA No.293/14. The State Commission accepted the appeal and remanded back the matter to the District Forum after setting aside the order of the District Forum.

Aggrieved, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant.

I have carefully heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record. It is stated by the learned counsel that for defective mobile phone District Forum has passed the correct order and the opposite parties were directed to return back cost of the mobile set.

However, the State Commission on the appeal filed by one of the opposite parties set aside the order and the State Commission remanded the matter to District Forum for deciding afresh. The State Commission should have decided the matter then and there rather than sending it back to the District Forum as the same is likely to take further time and the complainant will never get relief.

As the matter has been remanded to the District Forum by the State Commission by observing that the Ericson Company was not served because no proper address was filed for that Company and no prejudice will be caused to any party if the matter is decided by the District Forum on contest on merits as per law within a reasonable time, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission because the State Commission has powers to remand the matter back to the District Forum in appeal and pleadings are required to be completed only before the trial forum i.e. the District Forum.

Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 29.10.2015 of the State Commission, which calls for any interference from this Commission. Consequently, the revision petition No.131 of 2016 is dismissed. However, the District Forum is directed to decide the present complaint within a maximum period of three months as the matter has become old and the complainant has already suffered much.