Order no. 12 dt. 20-10-2014
Ld. Advocate for the Appellants is present. Respondent has not appeared.
The appeal is taken up for hearing.
Having heard the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants and on perusal of the materials on record, it becomes amply clear that the said EA, being no. 118/2012, was previously disposed of on full satisfaction vide order no. 03 dt. 04-12-2012. However, the said EA has been revived on the basis of a petition of the DHr, vide order no. 04 dt. 22-02-2013, on the ostensible ground that JDr has again adopted unfair trade practice by not sending fresh bill and after adjusting Rs. 5,000/- being deposited by the DHr, as per order of the Forum.
No doubt, it gives rise to a fresh cause of action and as such, the same cannot be tagged with the EA already disposed of by it. It is beyond the comprehension of one how the Ld. Forum modified/reviewed its own order notwithstanding the fact that it has got no authority/jurisdiction to do so under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
On the face of it, the impugned order, being issued by the Ld. Forum below, is not at all sustainable under the law and hence, the same is set aside.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order stands set aside.
There will be no force to the impugned order, by which WA has been issued by the Ld. Forum.
