Ram Govind Sharma vs Sitaram Poddar

THE present revision petition has been filed by Shri Ram Govind Sharma (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand, which had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

THE brief facts of the case according to the Petitioner is that one Sitaram Poddar (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) was running a scheme in the name of Subhash Auto, and there were about 5000 members who joined the scheme. Under this scheme each member was required to deposit Rs.200/- every month for 31 months from the date of commencement of the scheme. In this way, each member would have to deposit Rs.6200/- to the scheme. Every month, two members were selected through lottery and were given motorcycles. As per the conditions of the scheme, at the end of the scheme i.e. after 31 months those members who were not successful in the lottery would be returned their money after deducting Rs.600/-. According to the Petitioner, after completion of the scheme, the Respondent did not return the money to the members as per the conditions of the scheme. THE Petitioner therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum. Before the District Forum, the Petitioner had appointed one Kamal Kishore Sharma to plead the case on his behalf. No affidavit was filed before the District Forum as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 nor was any credible evidence led before the for a in support of the Petitioner/ Complainants contention. According to the District Forum, the Petitioners representative continued to make irrelevant submissions and appeared to be a quarrelsome person. The District Forum therefore, dismissed the complaint with the following observations: The complainant is absent. OP Lawyer filed Hazri on behalf of OP. Perused the record. I find complaint petitioner and reply thereto by the OP on record. Complainant had not filed any affidavit in support of his case till date, as required by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On the other hand, the complainant brought one man namely Kamal Kishore Sharma, a quarrelsome man, always trying to irritate the forum by making irrelevant submissions, which is apparent from the record of the instant case. Consequently, there being no evidence on affidavit on behalf of the complainant, this case stands dismissed. The complainant, having wasted much of the time of this Forum and also that of the OP is liable to bear penal cost of Rs. 1000/- payable to OP within a month failing which OP may initiate penal provision under Section 27 of the C P Act for realization of cost amount as well as penalty provided under the above act. This case is accordingly dismissed awarded litigation cost in favour of OP.

Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission after giving three opportunities to the Petitioner dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.

THE present revision petition has been filed against the order of the State Commission dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. THEre is also a delay of 114 days in filing the revision petition. Shri Kamal Kishore Sharma again appeared before this Commission on behalf of Petitioner on 01.02.2007. At that time, the then Member of this Commission who heard the revision petition recorded as follows: Shri Sharma stated to be authorized Power of Attorney holder of the complainant/ revision petitioner. Shri Ram Govind Sharms is present. He seeks time to file application for condonation of delay and also produce all the documents which were relied upon by the fora below. The case was thereafter adjourned for 3rd April 2007 for admission. On 03.04.2007 Shri Kamal Kishore Sharma appeared and submitted before this Commission that the condonation application and the documents to be filed were ready and that he would be filing them during the course of the day. The case was therefore listed for admission on 27.04.2007. On that date, notice in condonation application and in revision to the Respondent was issued returnable on 24.08.2007 and the case was listed for arguments on 29.04.2008. Four weeks time to file reply was given to the Respondent. On 01.09.2010, fresh notices were issued to both the parties for 07.10.2010. AD cards were not received, but on that date, Shri K K Sharma authorized representative for the Petitioner appeared before us. He had not filed the required documents nor was he ready with arguments. He stated that he had been busy with some urgent work and sought at least a months time to present the case.

WE have considered the submissions of Shri Kamal Kishore Sharma as well as the relevant papers on record. The Petitioner through his authorized representative has so far not led any evidence either before the learned Fora below or before us in support of his complaint although he was given several opportunities to do so, including by this Commission which makes us seriously doubt the credibility and bonafide of this so called authorized representative of the Petitioner. Under the Consumer Protection Regulations, Consumer Forum has to guard itself from touts and busy bodies in the grab of power of attorney holders or authorized agents in the proceedings before it. WE are of the view that Shri Kamal Kishore Sharma falls in this category. Keeping in view these facts and the past history of the case before the District Forum and the State Commission, we have no option but to dismiss this revision petition for non-prosecution.