At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI
By, PRESIDENT; MRS. A.S. VIJAYAKAR
By, MR. Y. KRISHAN
By, MR. BRIJENDRA SINGH
By, MEMBERS
For the Appellant: Mahabir Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent: Nemo.
Judgment Text
Y. Krishan, Member
1. The appellant was represented by Shri Mahabir Singh, Advocate. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent.
2. In this case the District Forum had passed two orders one on 31.8.1989 and another on 28.9.1989. The appeal (erroneously described as revision petition) there against was transferred to the National Commission at the request of the State Commission of Rajasthan by its order dated 13th July, 1990. The State Commission made this request on the ground that the complainant before the District Forum, M/s. Premier Paints, had entered a caveat that the complainant was known to the President of the State Commission and hence the State Commission did not want to hear the appeal.
3. It is not necessary to recite the facts of the case as the appeal is being disposed of solely on the basis of the power of the District Forum to grant the relief it has granted to the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act.
4. On the 31st August, 1989, the District Forum passed an order directing that the lease deed in respect of the land allotted in Malaviya Industrial Area in favour of M/s. Premier Paints in the possession of the RICCO (Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd.) be sent to the R.F.C. (Rajasthan Finance Corporation) to enable the latter to grant any further loan if possible.
5. Subsequently the District Forum by its order dated 28th September, 1989 sought to rectify a deficiency in its order dated 31st August, 1989 on the ground that it inadvertantly omitted to state in its order that the lease deed was to be sent to R.F.C. for creating an equitable mortgage and that no conditions be stipulated by RICCO for creation of equitable mortgage on the lease deed while transferring it to R.F.C. Since the RICCO has laid down certain conditions, the District Forum ruled that the same should not stand in the way of the petitioner getting a loan and the R.F.C. in granting the same.
6. The reliefs which Consumers Disputes Redressal Forums can grant to any complainant are only those specified in Sec. 14 of the Consumer Disputes Act. The reliefs granted by the District Forum by its orders on 31st August, 1989 and 28th September, 1989 are not reliefs which are enumerated in Section 14 and hence they were not within the power of the District Forum to grant.
7. Further, having passed the order of the 31st August, 1989 a
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
nd disposed of the case, it was no longer open to the District Forum to recall and modify its order of 31st August, 1989. 8. The orders of the District Forum dated 31st August, 1989 and 28th September, 1989 are set aside as illegal and invalid. Case disposed of.
