GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs NISHI AGRAWAL

BOTH these appeals are directed against order dated 21st December, 1995 of District Forum, Ghaziabad passed on Application No. 12-C of the complainant in Complaint Case No. 1467 of 1993 decided by the District Forum on 26th August, 1995.

MR. Rakesh Kumar Gupta is present on behalf of Smt. Nishi Agrawal in both the appeals while MR. Ram Raj is the learned Counsel for the GDA in them. Complaint Case No. 1467 of 1993 was decided by the District Forum along with several other cases by its order dated 26th August, 1995. Various reliefs were granted to the complainants in all these cases.

The case of Smt. Nishi Agrawal is that during the pendency of her complaint before the District Forum she had made an application for amending the relief clause in the complaint by which she confined her case to the refund of the amount deposited by her with interest and compensation for deficiency in service and deleting the prayer for a direction for the delivery of the house allotted to her by the GDA. While deciding the complaint by its order dated 26.8.1995 along with a large number of other cases the District Forum failed to consider this application and passed an order common to all the cases. Upon this, the complainant filed an Application 12-C by which the earlier order had been modified by the District Forum.

THE learned Counsel have urged various grounds in support of the plea taken by them in their respective appeals against the order dated 21st December, 1995. It is unnecessary to notice them or to express any opinion about them for the simple reason that in the opinion of the Commission the subsequent order dated 21st December, 1995 amounted to a review by the District Forum of its earlier order dated 26.8.1995 which had been passed on the merits of the case. THE Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not confer the power of review upon the District Forum of an order passed by it on merits after hearing the parties to the dispute. THE order dated 21st December, 1995 challenged in these two appeals is liable to be set aside on this short ground. We may make it clear that if the complainant was aggrieved by the order dated 26th August, 1995 even on the ground that the application for amendment made by her before the decision of the case was not considered by the District Forum, she should have assailed the earlier order dated 26.8.1995 in an appeal on that ground. Appeal No. 89 of 1996 is allowed while Appeal No. 96 of 1996 is dismissed. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs in them. The judgment shall be placed on the record of Appeal No. 89 of 1996 while its copy shall be placed on the record of Appeal No. 96 of 1996.

LET copies of the order be given to the learned Counsel for the parties as per rules. Appeal 89/1996 allowed. Appeal 96/1996 dismissed.