SHIV RAWAT AND OTHERS Vs. JASPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, through the medium of instant writ petition, seek setting aside of orders dated 03.10.2007 and 27.12.2005 passed by learned J &K State consumer Protection Commission, Srinagar, (for brevity 'learned Commission') and Divisional Consumers Protection Forum, Srinagar (for short 'learned Forum') respectively.

(2.) Petitioner's case is that learned Forum vide order dated 27.12.2005 in complaint no.42/2004, awarded a sum of Rs. 46,300/- as compensation in favour of Jaspal Singh son of Khushal Singh resident of Rajbagh, Srinagar respondent herein, on account of loss of parcel, which allegedly contained mobile phone and batteries. The said order, according to petitioners, is an ex parte order, without hearing petitioners. The petitioners assailed the order dated 27.12.2005 passed by learned Forum before learned Commission in an appeal. Learned Forum vide order dated 27.12.2005 dismissed the appeal on the ground that petitioners had not deposited 25% of the amount, which is statutory requirement. Aggrieved of both orders, petitioners have approached this Court with writ petition on hand.

(3.) Petitioners challenge both orders dated 27.12.2005 and 03.10.2007 on the ground that learned Commission by upholding the order dated 27.12.2005 passed by learned Forum, allowing the complaint no.42/2004 of respondent, granted Rs. 46,300/- as compensation. The said order, according to petitioners, has gone against the established principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court. It is submitted that the liability undertaken in a contract entered into by the parties cannot be transgressed by the Consumer Fora and relief for damages cannot be given in excess of the limit prescribed under the contract. The learned Commission is stated to have failed to appreciate that as when the counsel for respondent had brought to the notice of the learned Commission and objections raised about the maintainability of the appeal, the learned Commission issued direction to petitioners to comply with the statutory requirement. In compliance to this direction, the petitioners deposited in the learned forum a sum of Rs. 11,575/- and in the peculiar facts of the case, deposit should be construed as sufficient compliance of the statutory requirement for which the impugned order needs to be set-aside. It is contended that learned Commission in its order dated 03.10.2007 dealt at length with the question of maintainability of the appeal and merits of the case have not been dealt with; that the impugned order has been passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice and ex parte order is against petitioners which dismay of petitioners, thus frustrating very objective of the appeal and rendering the whole effort to petitioners infructuous. The petitioners maintain that the appeal would be maintainable even if deposit is made subsequent to the filing of the appeal. It is further stated that learned Commission has failed to appreciate the principles of laid down on the subject that the forums constituted under Consumer Protection Act are invested with jurisdiction under Section 14(d) of the Act to award compensation to consumers only for any loss or injury suffered by consumers due to negligence of opposite party.