HINDUSTAN PETROLIEUM CORPN. LTD. vs ANIL TOLASARIA

-THE undated order passed by the Learned Calcutta District Forum in C.D.F. Case No. 1180 of 1994 has been challenged by the instant appeal inter alia on the ground that the interlocutory order has been passed by the District Forum without service of notice upon the Appellant prior to passing the said impugned order and that the respondent/complainant was not a consumer who could lodge this complaint and that the appellant did not enter into any contract for service with the respondent in lieu of consideration as such the question of discontinuation of supply of Petrolieum Products to the respondent does not arise and that there was no privity of contract with the respondent in connection with the business of Petrolieum Products and that the case records of C.D.F. Case No. 1180 of 1994 is not traceable with the C.D.F. and that it would appear from the case records, had it been available, that by suppression of material fact, the impugned order was obtained by the complainant/respondent by practising fraud for which it vitiated the entire proceeding.

ACCORDINGLY, the appellant prayed for dismissal of the impugned undated order passed in C.D.F. Case No. 1180 of 1994. In earlier cases, namely West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Rajendra Prasad Shah in S.C. Case No. 171/Review of 1994 and West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Suhasaria Oil and Rice Mills in S.C. Case No. 234/R/1994, we by majority views decided that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums have the power and competency to pass an interim order considering the exigency situation, prima facie case made out, balance on convenience and inconvenience and irreparable loss to be caused in absence of such interim order.

In the instant case inspite of service of notice upon the respondent he has opted not to appear before us. We also do not find any materials on record justifying the exigency in the matter and prima facie case to warrant the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to pass such an interim order in the matter. Had there been really any exigency or urgency in the matter, the respondent could have appeared before us to contest the matter. Moreover, the L.C.R. in the Calcutta District Forum is not traceable for which it is not possible for us to call for records and to look into the facts of the case which prompted the Calcutta District Forum to pass such an interim order before appearance of the appellant there. Moreover, the undated order in C.D.F; Case No. 1180 of 1994 does not disclose any such exigency or prima facie case in the matter, so as to warrant it to pass an interim order without appearance of the Appellant Further, the Appellant contended that there was no obligation on the part of the appellant to render service to the respondent in lieu of any consideration and there was no privity of contract between the parties for supply of Petrolieum Products to the respondent. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal stands allowed and the undated impugned order in C.D.F. Case No. 1180 of 1994 is set aside. No cost. Appeal allowed.