Full Judgment
B.N. Sinha, President
1. This appeal is directed against order dated 5.5.93 passed by the District Forum, Arah disposing of Complaint Case Nos. 32 and 33 of 93 by this common order. The appellants here were the opposite party and the respondents here were the complainants in the two respective cases before the District Forum.
2. The memo of appeal has been presented before this Commission on 6.8.93 i.e.; much after the expiry of the period of thirty days from the date of the impugned order and therefore an application under Rule 8(4) of the Bihar Consumer Protection Rules has been filed by the appellants stating the facts on which the appellants rely to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the memo of appeal within the period specified u/Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act). It has been mentioned that the impugned order was forwarded to the Block Development Officer (appellant No. 3) by Memo No. 8/93 dated 10.5.93 by the District Forum, Bhojpur at Arah which was received in the office of the Block Development Officer (appellant No. 3) on 12.5.93 and thereafter the matter was processed in the office of the appellant No. 3 and the matter was then placed before the District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Arah who ordered for filing appeal before this State Commission and to get the statements of facts prepared for that. It is further stated that thereafter the statement of facts were prepared and put up before the District Magistrate who by his letter dated 28.6.93 asked the Advocate General of Bihar, Patna for filing the appeal before this Commission and that thereafter the appellant No. 3 contacted the Advocate General, Government of Bihar on 29.6.93 who asked him to come through proper channel i.e., the Law Department, Government of Bihar and that thereafter the Block Development Officer (appellant No. 3) informed the District Magistrate vide his letter dated 29.6.93 with regard thereto and the District Magistrate on the same day i.e; on 29.6.93 requested the Secretary, Law Department, Government of Bihar to file the appeal, but since the matter related to the Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar, the Commissioner-cum-Secretary. Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar, Patna was requested by the District Magistrate by his letter dated 12.7.93 to take action in the matter for getting the appeal filed before this Commission. It is stated that thereafter the file was processed in the Minor Irrigation Department that the file was then sent to the Law Department, Government of Bihar, Patna on 30.7.93 which was received by the Law Department on 31.7.93; that thereafter the matter was processed in the Law Department and the order of Law Secretary was obtained and that then it was sent to the Advocate General, Bihar who endorsed the file to Advocate to file the memo of appeal and then the appeal was filed on 6.8.93. It is evident from the facts stated above that according to the appellant the delay in filing the appeal has been due to the formalities in the different offices and that though the copy of the impugned order was received by the appellant No. 3 on 12.5.93 the appeal could be presented here about three months thereafter. This cannot be accepted as sufficient cause for not filing the memo of appeal within time and, therefore, the prayer for condonation of delay is being refused and consequently the appeal is being dismissed as time barred.
3. But it appears from the facts of the case which may be briefly noticed that the District Forum has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it under the Act. The complainants who are respondents No. 1 and 2 here claim to be small farmers and their case is that they had filed separate applications under Minor Irrigation Scheme before the Deputy Development Officer for getting subsidy for a boring for the purpose of irrigating their respective land which was duly forwarded by the Officers below and approved and the work was assigned to a contractor and the drilling process also started. But subsequently an objection was filed by some farmers that as the proposed site of the two respective boring was within the radius of 150 meters of another boring, this boring was not permissible under the policy of the Government and that after inquiry by the authorities concerned it was found that the complainants had filed their applications with incorrect statements just to obtain subsidy for boring in their fields and therefore the order was cancelled. Thereafter the two complainants got the boring completed at their own cost and filed the two respective cases before the District Forum alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party to which objection was filed by the opposite party before the District Forum. But the District Forum has ordered for the payment of cost incurred by the two respective complainants in getting the boring completed in their respective fields or to supply the materials to the complainant which they had to purchase for boring in their fields.
4. It is evident from the facts stated above that the District Forum has completely misdirected itself in appreciation of the facts of the case. The different orders passed by the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 were in discharge of their statutory and official functions and not on the basis of hiring of their services by the two complainants and, therefore, these two complainants are not consumers and the respective cases filed by them are not maintainable under the Act. Hence the District Forum acted illegally in entertaining those complaints and it has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law.
Therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is being set aside u/Section 17(B) of the Act and the two complaints are being dismissed.
There is, however, no order as to costs.
Complaints dismissed.