AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
WE are proceeding to dispose of this revision application on hearing both the Advocates of the parties and on perusal of the material available in the appeal paper book.
THE petitioners/applicants are original O.Ps. in the complaint, which is still pending for disposal on the file of the District Forum, Kolhapur. The District Forum on 18.9.2003 has passed interim order on interim application presented on behalf of the complainant claiming certain interim relief restraining the petitioners/O.Ps. from transferring their assets or creating any interest in favour of third parties pending hearing of the complaint. In para 1 of the application which on pages 75 onwards the complainant averred that O.Ps. are heavily indebted and, therefore, relief as claimed be granted.
On 8.8.2003 the District Forum passed the interim relief upon the said application restraining the O.Ps. from disposing of or transferring, etc. of the properties. The relief granted which is in vernacular is reproduced herein below: "xxx xxx xxxx xxxx"
WE will have our comments upon the relief granted in terms as above at later stage. On 18.9.2003, however, the District Forum, passed further order purported to be on very application of the complainant and we reproduce the relevant part thereof- "xxx xxx xxxx xxxx"
IT will be clear from reading the order dated 8th August, 2003 hereinabove that the District Forum has restrained the O.P. from disposing of or transferring the property. IT is pertinent to note that the District Forum has not taken care or it did not occur to it that when such reliefs are granted with regard to certain properties, it is obligatory upon the Judicial Forum to specify the properties in question with precise description thereof and there must be clearcut data to show that the properties to be protected must be at least prima facie of the ownership of the concerned party. The said particulars are not spelt out in the impugned order. It is stated that as per recent amendment to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 brought into force with effect from 15th March, 2003, the Consumer Fora have been empowered to pass interim order in the pending proceedings before them as provided under Section 13(3-B) of the said Act which reads: "13(3-B): Where during the pendency of any proceeding before the District Forum, it appears to it necessary, it may pass such interim order as is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
The pain reading of the said section would show that the interim order to be passed has to be "just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case" (Reproduced as it appears in the section). It would imply that there has to be circumstances warranting and justifying the grant of interim relief and Forum has to grant the same on being fully satisfied and convinced that prima facie the case for such an interim relief has been made out and exigency of the situation demands that interim relief is must in interest of justice and in the facts and situation obtained in the particular matter. The Forum while granting such an interim relief had to be judicious in its approach and must strike the balance bearing in mind, element of convenience or inconvenience and likelihood of prejudice and hardship resulting therefrom to the opposite party as well. In the instant case, as we notice the District Forum vide impugned order has ordered the applicant-O.P. to furnish Bank Guarantee of Rs. 20 lacs or furnish Collateral Security to the extent of Rs. 30 lacs against the property with clear title.
THE applicant-O.P. has taken exception to the said orders. It is asserted that when the main consumer dispute is yet to be adjudicated the orders in the terms as made are arbitrary and operates very harsh. THE amount of Bank Guarantee and Collateral Security as mentioned are disproportionate to the amount of claim in the complaint.
IT was further asserted that except bare assertion of the complainant respondent herein, no material has been made available to show that the situation warrants and justifies for grant of such relief. We find considerable force in the aforesaid submissions as made by and on behalf of the applicant herein.
By reading the impugned orders, the same does not indicate that the complainant having made out the case by producing the material before the District Forum. It is, therefore, evident that on bare asking District Forum has proceeded to pass the interim orders in the terms as aforesaid and as such the same has colour of exercises of arbitrariness. It is not indicated what is the extent of claim of the complainant in the complaint. Certainly, considering the pecuniary limit of jurisdiction of the District Forum which was till 15th March, 2003 to the extent of Rs. 5 lacs, calling upon the opposite party to furnish Bank Guarantee to the extent of Rs. 20 lacs or Collateral Security of Rs. 30 lacs in our view was not at all justified. That being so, it is not possible to sustain the orders as passed by the District Forum.
WE wish to state that the Consumer Fora while processing the consumer dispute has to do so by applying well settled principles of law and so has been posited recently by the Supreme Court in the case Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital & Ors., reported in the Supreme Court Cases III (2000) CPJ 1 (SC)=VI (2000) SLT 867=(2000) 7 SCC 688. In the said decision, the Apex Court has held that the proceedings before the Consumer Fora are judicial proceedings and as such has to be resolved by applying well settled principles of law and on considerations of the relevant material made available before it and order has to be reasoned order and must demonstrate the application of mind of its Presiding Officer. It be stated that the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Dr. C.V. Raman v. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2002 CTJ 421 and recently the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India & Ors., reported in October, 2003 CTJ page 863 have held that the Consumer Fora functioning under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have to follow the principles of natural justice.
BY reading the orders impugned in this proceeding, we find that there is some amount of overjealousness exhibited by the District Forum, which should have been indeed avoided. We only refer to the decision of this Commission in the case of Asstt. Commissioner of Police v. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District Forum, decided by us on 3rd July, 2002 and reported in 2003 (1) CPR page 254, in which facts and position obtained are somewhat similar as obtained in the matter herein, we while dealing with Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 administered a caution warning which we reproduced as it appears in paragraph 12 of the said order : "12. We wish to reiterate that as serious consequences flow from the order being passed under Section 27, affecting the fundamental rights, freedom and liberty of the Citizen enshrined in the Constitution, the Forums have to be circumspect and have to be judicious while processing the application seeking execution under Section 27 of the Act. It would not be proper for a Forum to make a display of its temper or irritation over lapses on the part of opposite parties so as to exhibit an attitude, which may be inferred as hostile to the opposite party. It must be realised that howsoever correct a judgment may be on law and facts, it will fail to serve the ends of justice if an impression is created in the minds of the people that it has been influenced by anger and passion. It should be remembered and borne in mind by the Presiding Officers that in judicial process, means are as important as the ends." For all these reasons, we hold that the orders being subject matter of the Revision herein cannot be sustained and hence we proceed to quash the same. At the same time, we make it clear, it will be open to the complainant to seek appropriate relief by fresh application, if situation so warrants and requires and District Forum shall consider the same on merits bearing in mind our observations as appearing in the judgment herein. ORDER 1. Revision application is allowed and its impugned orders dated 8th August, 2003 and 18th September, 2003 passed by District Forum are quashed. 2. No order as to costs in the application herein. 3. Copies to be furnished to the parties. 4. We also direct the Registry of this Commission to circulate copies of this order to all the District Forums in the State.
Revision allowed.