STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs DHANPAT SINGH

THIS appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 3.5.1996 passed by the District Forum, Sirohi in Complaint Case No : 170/1995 by which the complaint of the respondent was accepted in the manner that the appellants were ordered to maintain the supply of water within three days and further they were ordered to pay Rs. 3,000/ - as compensation and Rs. 500/ - as cost of litigation.

IT may be stated here that one Shaitan Singh who is said to be the father of Dhanpat Singh filed a complaint before the District Forum, Sirohi showing the name of Dhanpat Singh as complainant inter alia stating that Dhanpat Singh was a consumer as he had water connection. Since the water supply was not proper, therefore, the said complaint was filed. A reply was filed by the appellants and after hearing both the parties the District Forum allowed the complaint as stated above.

AGGRIEVED from that order of the District Forum, Sirohi the appellants have filed this appeal.

IN this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that since the consumer was Dhanpat Singh and he has not signed the complaint and the complaint has been signed by one Shaitan Singh, therefore, under Section 2(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the said complaint was not maintainable. On the other hand it has been contended on behalf of the respondent that this plea was not taken by the appellants before the District Forum, therefore, they could not take it before this Commission.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as for the respondent and have gone through the material available on the record.

SINCE the plea goes to the very route about the maintainability of the complaint, therefore, such plea can be entertained even at appellate stage though not agitated before the District Forum. There is no dispute on the point that the complaint bears the name of Dhanpat Singh as complainant and on the bottom the same is signed by one Shaitan Singh.

The question is whether such complaint showing the name of Dhanpat Singh but signed by Shaitan Singh can be maintainable or not. There is also no dispute on the point that an affidavit has been filed on behalf of Shaitan Singh that he has been authorised to file complaint on behalf of Dhanpat Singh but no affidavit has been filed by Dhanpat Singh.

There is no dispute on the point that the water connection was in the name of Dhanpat Singh and not in the name of Shaitan Singh.

IN our considered opinion mere authorisation to file a complaint is not sufficient. Under the consumer a complaint can be filed by a consumer or by any recognized consumer association or the Central or State Government. Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 contains necessary provisions with regard thereto. Under these circumstances, on the basis of the authorisation slip, the complainant was not entitled to file the complaint under Section 12 of the Act. It may be stated here that there was no contract between the appellants and Shaitan Singh and when the consumer was Dhanpat Singh and his name had been shown in the complaint, the complaint should have been signed by Dhanpat Singh and not by Shaitan Singh. Thus, it can be said that Shaitan Singh had no locus standi to file the complaint. The fact that in the complaint the name of Dhanpat Singh was mentioned would not come to help Shaitan Singh as complaint had been filed by Shaitan Singh though the name of the complainant mentioned in the complaint was Dhanpat Singh.

HAD Shaitan Singh would have filed the complaint showing the name as representative or authorised agent of Dhanpat Singh, the position would have been different one because in that case the complaint itself would have been filed in the name of Shaitan Singh. For the reasons mentioned above the complaint filed by Shaitan Singh in the name of Dhanpat Singh was not maintainable and thus the impugned order passed by the District Forum, Sirohi could not be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed and the impugned order dated 3.5.1996 passed by the District Forum, Sirohi is set aside and the complaint of the complainant stands dismissed. Appeal allowed.