ARUN J REBELLO vs Satish

-THIS is a petition filed by the appellant in Appeal No. 1308/2007 under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the "act") to review the Order dated 27. 6. 2007 passed by this Commission in the said Appeal.

SUFFICE it to say that the Review Petition filed by the petitioner to review the Order dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, since the power of review is not conferred under the Act on this Commission. If at all if the petitioner is aggrieved by the Order passed in the Appeal, the appropriate remedy for the appellant is to file an appeal before the National Commission under Section 19 of the Act. Even though the Review Petition itself is not maintainable, we propose to pass a considered order since the person who appeared on behalf of the appellant has made serious allegations against this Commission regarding the so-called cruel treatment meted out to him and the exercise of power by this Commission in dismissing the appeal at the stage of admission.

Before the District Forum the person who appeared for the complainant, by name Mr. Alex J. Rebello, is stated to be an authorised agent to plead on behalf of the complainant. In the Appeal filed before this Commission, the above said Mr. Alex J. Rebello has not filed any power of Attorney or letter authorising to appear for the appellant. But since he has stated that he is the father of the appellant, looking at his age we permitted him to argue the appeal. After hearing the above said person and after going through the very well considered order passed by the District Forum, we found no reason to admit the appeal. Accordingly, we dismissed the Appeal at the stage of admission.

THIS Review Petition is also presented by Mr. Alex J. Rebello without filing a Power of Attorney or a letter of authorization by the petitioner. When he appeared in the petition he was wearing a regular suit. Looking at his suit we thought that he is a Practising Advocate. But, in the written arguments, he described himself as a Senior Citizen and a member of the Bar and he appeared in the usual dress prescribed by the High Court for Advocates without Gown. From his dress he appeared to be a Practicing Advocate. One of the grounds urged in this Review Petition is that this Commission under Section 13 (1) (a) of the Act is required to refer a copy of the appeal to the opposite party directing him to give his version and, accordingly, when an appeal is filed, automatically the State Commission is required to admit the appeal and order Notice to the respondent/s. In support of his arguments, he relies upon Section 18 of the Act. Section 18 of the Act provides that the provisions of Sections 12, 13 and 14 of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder for the disposal of the complaint by the District Forum shall, with such modification as may be necessary, be applicable to the disposal of the disputes by the State Commission. From this section, it is clear that, no doubt, the provision of Sections 12, 13 and 14 are made applicable for the disposal of the disputes by the State Commission with such modification as may be necessary. Section 12 of the Act prescribes the procedure for the disposal of the complaint filed before the District Forum. Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act reads thus: "12. Manner in which complaint shall be made: (3) On receipt of a complaint made under Sub-section (1) the District Forum may, by order, allow the complaint to be proceeded with or rejected: provided that a complaint shall not be rejected under this sub-section unless an opportunity of being heard has been given to the complainant. Provided further that the admissibility of the complaint shall ordinarily be decided within twenty-one days from the date on which the complaint was received. "

From a reading of this sub-section it is clear that if the District Forum is satisfied, it may admit a complaint and proceed to dispose of the same on merits after due notice to the opposite party and, at the same time, it is also conferred with the power to reject the complaint at the stage of admission without notice to the opposite party if it is satisfied that the averments and the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose that there is some consumer dispute between the complainant and the opposite party. The procedure prescribed under Section 12 of the Act is applicable for disposal of the appeal filed before the State Commission with such modification under Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, if the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the order passed by the District Forum is just and reasonable and it does not call for interference it could be disposed of at the stage of admission without notice to the respondent/s after hearing the appellant. Therefore, there is no substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

THE case of the petitioner before the District Forum was that there was a delay of 7 days in delivery of baggage by the Aircraft Authorities. From the Order of the District Forum it is seen that it was a case relating to delay in delivery of one check-in baggage weighing 20 kgs. out of seven baggages weighing 150 kgs. According to the complainant he had kept dress materials, cosmetics and other items in that undelivered baggage. Before the District Forum the complainant did not adduce any acceptable evidence to show what was the material loss suffered by him on account of non-delivery of one baggage. From the Order of the District Forum it is seen that the O. Ps. have paid Rs. 3,000 as interim relief to the complainant because of the delay of 7 days in delivery of one baggage. The District Forum taking into account that the delay itself has caused little inconvenience has awarded another Rs. 10,000 as compensation and in addition has also awarded Rs. 2,000 as cost. Therefore, this Commission after hearing Mr. Alex J. Rebello on behalf of the appellant was satisfied that there was no substance in any of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and, accordingly, rejected the appeal. If at all the appellant was aggrieved by the said order the proper remedy was to approach the National Commission by way of an Appeal. Instead of filing an appeal, the petitioner has filed the present Review Petition making certain uncalled for and improper allegations against the Commission. The petitioner in the Written Arguments has, inter alia, used the following expressions: ". . . . . . . . I was saddly mistaken and badly hurt, deeply aggrieved and disappointed, disillusioned and pained by the biased and discriminatory, extempore dismissal order dated 26. 6. 2007, even without admitting the Appeal for hearing. . . Little did I expect your Lordship and Hon''ble Senior Member to be so harsh and cruel to a senior citizen and a member of the Bar, with a totally null and void order as per the Act. . . This is a simple case of judicial injustice and official negligence. . . . " hence. . . . the dismissal order which is null and void. . . be withdrawn. . . . If not withdrawn the Commission will send a wrong message to the people at large and your hardship will put a black spot on the purity of the judiciary and an insult to a senior member of the Bar. "

The person who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, though he has no authority whatsoever representing the petitioner, submits that he is a senior citizen and he was not properly treated and the order passed by this Commission is null and void, without even knowing the provisions contained in Section 12 (3) of the Act. The petitioner is not a Senior citizen so as to give preference of hearing as directed by the Apex Court. Assuming that the person who appeared is a senior citizen he cannot get any better treatment than the treatment that could be given to any other Advocate who represents the parties before this Commission. Therefore, we are of the view that this petition is liable to be dismissed with cost. In the result, we pass the following Order: the Review Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000 payable by the petitioner to the S. B. Account of the State Commission so as to use the same for the welfare of the Consumers. Petition dismissed.