VASANTHI THIAGARAJAN PRINCIPAL Vs. R NAGESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the respondent in C.O.P.No. 27 of 2007 on the file of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharmapuri @ Krishnagiri. Since he did not appear before the said Forum, he was set exparte and on 11.05.2007 an exparte order was passed against him directing to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant to compensate his mental agony and unrest and also a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceeding within six weeks. THE revision petitioner thereafter, filed an application to set aside the exparte decree along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying to condone the delay of 83 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte order. THE above said Forum returned the applications stating that there is no power vested with the Forum to set aside the exparte order under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is preferred.

(2.) MR.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned cousnel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that even though there is no specific provision in the Consumer Protection Act, there is no impediment for the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to condone the delay and set aside the exparte order. In fact, in the previous proceedings, this Court has taken a view that such a power could be excercised even by the Consumer Redressal Forum and appropriate relief has necessarily to be granted to the aggrieved party. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision reported in The Manager, Indian Bank, High Court Extension Counter, Madras 104 and four others Vs. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras and another 1996 (II) CTC 84 wherein while dealing with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 13(2) and (4) of the Act and Rules 88 and 89 of the Tamil Nadu, it has been observed that the power given to decide the complaint exparte implies to power the set aside such exparte order or decision. In para-9, it has been held thus"when the Consumer Protection Forum has got the power to decide a complaint ex parte under Rule 8(8) and 8(9) of the Rules, it automatically implies that it has got power to set aside an ex parte order. The District Consumer Forum and the State Consumer Forum have got power to entertain the applications to set aside ex parte orders and decide the same on merits. It is also settled law that when there is error in exercise of jurisdiction, this Court can always come in by exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and fairly conceded by MR.D.I.J.Rajkumar though there is no express provision in the Act or the Rules framed thereunder giving the forum jurisdiction to do so, it is well known rule of statutory construction that the Forum should be considered to be endowed with such ancillary or incidental powers as are necessary to discharge its functions for the purpose of rendering justice between the parties.".