SHIVRAM ANIL Vs. KHALSA FURNITURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 4.5.95 passed by the District Forum, Bhopal in Case No.107 of 95 dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant.

(2.) The material facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the complainant had filed a complaint against the opponent before the District Forum, Bhopal. The case of the complainant was that a Divan purchased by him from the opponent for a sum of Rs.1650/- was found to be defective and unserviceable and despite repeated requests made by the complainant, it was neither repaired nor replaced. The complainant, therefore, sought the relief that the opponent be directed either to replace the defective Divan or to refund the price thereof alongwith a sum of Rs.5,000/- by way of compensation. Before issuing notice to the opponent the District Forum directed the complainant by order dated 27.3.95 to furnish security for payment of Rs.1,500/-. As the complainant failed to comply with that order, the District Forum by the impugned order dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by that order, the complainant has filed this revision petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to direct the complainant to furnish security and hence dismissal of the complaint for failure to comply with that order as without jurisdiction. The contention deserves to be upheld. It is regretted that before proceeding to pass an order directing the complainant to furnish security, the District Forum should not have cared to ascertain whether it had jurisdiction to pass that order. The procedure to be followed by a District Forum on receipt of a complaint is provided by Sec.13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , hereinafter referred to as the 'act'. Sub-section (4) of Sec.13 of the Act specifies what powers vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 have been conferred on a District Forum. We do not find therein that powers under Order 25 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 have been conferred on a District Forum. In our opinion, therefore, by directing the complainant to furnish security before proceeding to try the complaint and by dismissing the complaint for failure to comply with an order which it had no jurisdiction to pass, the District Forum has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law and has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The orders deserve to be set aside.