- (1.) - This appeal under sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 5-12-89 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in complaint case No. 57 of 1989.
(2.) THE complainant-respondent filed a complaint on 24-3-89 against oppesite-party-appellant praying that the concerned Department of the State Government may be ordered to direct the auto-rikshaw owners/drivers to ply the auto-rikshaws with working meter and to charge according to the prescribed rates from the persons who hire them and further to behave properly. A notice was issued to the opposite-party. It resisted the complaint on various grounds. It was pleaded that the complaint as framed is not maintainable against the opposite-party. The complaint was a 'common cause'. It was contended on behalf of the opposite-parties before the District Forum that it is not within his control to compel the auto-rikshaw owners/drivers to charge according to the meter. The District Forum repelled the contention and ordered to convey to the State Government/r. T. O. that "forum desires that public should be charged according to the meter reading". The opposite-party assails this in appeal. Despite service of notice, the opposite-party appellant has not appeared to support the appeal. It was considered proper to decide the appeal on merit of the case under rule 8 (6) of the Consumer Protection (Rajasthan) Rules, 1987. We have perused the complaint, reply thereto and grounds of appeal and also heard the respondent. The words used in the impugned order are 'forum desires'. What the Forum ment/r- T. O. that public should according to the meter reading in have been prescribed by the State desires was to convey to the State Govern-be charged by auto-rikshaw owner/drivers accordance with the prescribed rates. Rates Govt. /r. T. O. It is for all concerned to see that the prescribed rates are charged from the public and as and when it comes to their notice that the rates are charged in excess of the prescribed rates, appropriate action as warranted by law should be taken. Be that as it may, the 'desire' expressed by the District Forum is not such which call for any interference by us in appeal. This 'desire' is only to be conveyed. The words 'order accordingly' refer to conveying of the desire that the public should be charged by the auto-rikshaw owners/drivers according to the meter reading. The District Forum as a redressal of grievances forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 could pass the impugned order and technical objection in a 'common cause' should not stand in the way of making such observations. There exists no good ground for setting aside the order under appeal. There is no merit in this appeal. It is, consequently dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Order pronounced on march 23, 1990 .;