Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

RP/17/58

WESTERN CENTRAL RAILWAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

MOHD.SHAKEEL SIDDHIQUE - Opp.Party(s)

SH.RAJEEV JAIN

07 Dec 2019

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                                    REVISION PETITION NO. 58 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 20.06.2017 passed in C.C.No.58/2016 by District Forum, Betul)

 

CHIEF PARCEL SUPERVISOR & ORS.                                                             …          PETITIONERS

 

Versus

                 

MOHD. SHAKEEL SIDDIQUI & ANOTHER.                                                        …         RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR     :      PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                          :      MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI S. S. BANSAL                                      :      MEMBER                                   

 

                                      O R D E R

07.12.2019

 

            Shri Rajeev Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners.

              Shri M. K. Pandagare, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

 

As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar :                       

            This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.06.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Betul (For short ‘Forum’) in C.C.No.58/2016 whereby the Forum has dismissed the objection filed by the petitioners/opposite party no. 3 & 4 to the effect that the respondent no.1 is not covered under the term consumer.

2.                     Having gone through the pleadings of the complaint we find that there is absolutely no averment to the effect that the complainant/respondent no.1 is carrying on business of utensils and booked 70 pressure cookers “for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment” (emphasis supplied).  In the absence of any whisper in the complaint to that effect, the Forum has committed error in rejecting the objection raised by the petitioners/opposite party no. 3 & 4.

3.                     We therefore set-aside the impugned order and sustain the objection raised by the petitioners/opposite party no. 3 and 4 by holding that the respondent no.1/complainant does not fall under the category of ‘consumer’ as there is no pleading in the complaint.  In the circumstances the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

4.                     However, we observe that the complainant shall be free to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

5.                     In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set-aside. As a consequence, the complaint also stands dismissed.

 

     (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)    (Dr. Monika Malik)    (S. S. Bansal)           

                  President                               Member                 Member