RAMANIYAM REAL ESTATES LIMITED Vs. P RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these revisions, a common question arises, i.e., whether the District Consumer Forum and a State Consumer Forum has powers to issue a commission to make a local inspection. IN all these cases, the consumer forum has appointed a commissioner and asked for the report. According to the petitioner, the order of the forum is one without jurisdiction and, therefore, under article 227 of the Constitution of INdia, the same is liable to be quashed. The argument is that the forum itself is a creation of the statute and when the statute gives the powers anything which is not provided under the statute cannot be allowed by the consumer forum. IN this case, the issuance of the commission is not provided under the statute and, therefore, it is one without jurisdiction. As against the said contention, the complainant before the consumer forum who is the respondent herein contended that the consumer forum has been specially enacted for speedy disposal of cases and it is an additional remedy provided for an aggrieved person. It is a judicial, tribunal having the trappings of a court and since it decides the rights of the parties it has also power to take evidence. The issuance of commission is a mode of taking evidence and the same is not prohibited by the statute. It is further submitted that what is not prohibited under the statute, is entitled to be exercised by the Tribunal and, therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference.

(2.) I heard learned counsel on both sides in detail. What is the scope of the proceeding whether before the District Forum or State Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, came up for consideration in Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. N. K. Modi. In that case, the question that arose for consideration was whether the provisions of section 34 of the Arbitration Act, could be invoked before a consumer forum and whether the proceedings before the forum are legal proceedings. Paragraphs 8 to 11 of the judgment are relevant for our purpose and the same read thus :

(3.) IT is contended that neither the Act nor the rules framed thereunder confer any powers upon the Tribunal to set aside an ex parte award. IT is urged that the award although ex parte, was an adjudication on merits as it was based on the evidence led by the appellant, and, therefore, the application made by respondent No. 3 was in reality an application for review and not a mere application for setting aside an ex parte award'. While answering this submission, the apex court had held as follows :