AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel, Mr. K.Paul on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. A.S. Siddiqui on behalf of the respondent.
The petitioner''s case in a nutshell is that:
The petitioner through the Revision Application assails the Impugned Orders dated 24.07.2015 and 06.11.2015 passed by the
Learned State Commission in F.A.O. No. 5 of 2014 and Misc. Case No. 6 of 2015 arising thereof, in first dismissing the Appeal of
the Petitioner for default by an exparte order and further rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for recall of the said Order vide order
dated 06.11.2015.
The Learned State Commission while passing the above Orders completely overlooked the settled position of law vis-a-vis the
powers conferred on the State Commission and non-appreciated the settled law that State Commission does not have powers to
dismiss the appeal for default without hearing on merits or referring to the pleadings of the case.
Further, the Learned State Commission in rejecting the prayer of the Petitioner for recall of the Order dated 24.07.2015 erred in law
in as much as the Learned Forum completely overlooked the hardships occasioned unto the Petitioner and the principles involved in
dispensing the cause of justice.
Thus being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Orders dated 24.07.2015 and Order dated 06.11.2015 passed by
the State Commission in F.A.O. No. 5 of 2014 and Misc. Case No. 6 of 2015 arising thereof, the humble petitioner approached this
Hon''ble Court by way of this revision application for redressal of his genuine grievances.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.Paul submits that the petition before the Consumer Forum is not maintainable at all nor is it to the tune
of letter and spirit of the Consumer Act, so the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, East Khasi Hills, Shillong
dated 10.07.2014 passed in Consumer Case No. 03 of 2008 and the order passed by the Meghalaya State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Shillong dated 06.11.2015 passed in Misc. Case No. 6 of 2015 in F.A No. 5 of 2014 needs to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. A.S.Siddiqui submits that the matter can be agitated before either the State
Commission or the National Commission.
From the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, it appears that both the parties claims the National Savings Certificate lying in the
GPO, Shillong. As such, GPO, Shillong cannot allow any of the parties to withdraw the National Savings Certificate as there is claim and counter
claim.
After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, it appears that since there is a dispute between the two parties, it
is only the Court of Succession that can decide the matter and not the Consumer Court. Consumer Court deals with cases of negligence or
deficiency of service. In this instant case, I do not see any ingredient of deficiency or negligence of service on the part of the GPO, Shillong. If there
is any dispute arising between the two parties in such cases, GPO Shillong is helpless to decide the right person to whom the certificate is to be
handed over to. This matter needs to be decided only by the Succession Court, therefore, I find that the Consumer Court both at the District level
as well as the State level have wrongly entertained the petitioner.
Accordingly, the impugned orders referred above are hereby set aside and the parties should approach the appropriate forum. The matter
stands disposed of.