- (1.) BY way of this revision petition, legality of the order dated 2.6.2006 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 232 of 2003, Upbhogta Sanrakshan Samiti v. M/s. S.P. Enterprises, Haridwar, has been challenged by the opposite party -revisionist.
(2.) BY the aforesaid order, the application of the complainant for leave to amend the complaint in order to substitute the relief clause by amended relief clause was allowed.
(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. None appeared from the complainant's side despite a notice having been sent by registered post, which was not received back unserved even after expiry of period of one month. The order sheet of consumer complaint No. 232 of 2003 (Paper Nos. 28 -29) indicate that the complainant has had notice of the revision petition pending before the commission and in which an order was passed staying the proceedings of the consumer complaint. It is, thus, evident that the complainant refrained from putting in appearance to contest the revision petition. Record reveals that the revisionist had raised a legal plea that the complainant is not a "consumer" within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hence has no locus standi to file the complaint against the revisionist. The plea goes to the root of the matter and requires to be answered and decided on merit at the very first instance when the District Forum took up the matter to decide the application for leave to amend the relief clause of the complaint. It was, therefore, incorrect on the part of the District Forum to observe that the controversy in that regard is not required to be decided at this stage but will be taken up later on after the evidence of the parties is taken on record and the complaint is to be decided on merit. The reason being that the complainant, who claims itself to be a voluntary consumer association has nowhere stated in the complaint that it was registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or under any other law for the time being in force as is required by the definition of "complainant" under Section 2(1)(b)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Moreover, basic requirement is that voluntary consumer association must be the "consumer" under the Act. The submission in that regard, if any, in the written complaint was also required to be taken note of by the District Forum to decide the plea of non -maintainability of the complaint raised by the revisionist. Therefore, it is evident that the District Forum has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and refrained from deciding the above issue at the outset and at the first available opportunity so that the matter may not be prolonged and any of the parts may not have been put to unnecessary harassment. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be legally maintained and is liable to be set aside.;