Rajendra Singh Sisodiya Vs. Madhya Pradesh Housing Board - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- indian penal code, 1890.sections 307 & 324: [lokeshwar singh panta & b.sudershan reddy,jj] assault proof - appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - no evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - however opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury held, appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under section 324 of i.p.c., sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him - bhagvat, learned counsel for the petitioner, referred to the provisions of section 21 of the act to show that under clause (b) of section 21, the national commission has the power to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by the state commission where it appears to the national commission that such state commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. one at the consumer forum, second at state commission level and the third at national commission level and that the national commission has been given powers to call for the records of the state commission and if it comes to a conclusion that the state commission has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in it or has acted in excess of its jurisdiction, or has acted with material irregularity, the same can be rectified by the national commission. and (b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any state commission where it appears to the national commission that such state commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. if we now read under section 21(b) of the act quoted above, it is clear that the national commission has the power to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any state commission, if it finds that the state commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. word 'any' has a diversity of meaning and may be employed to indicate 'all' or 'every' as well as 'some' or 'one' and its meaning in a given statute depends upon the context and the subject matter of the statute. sunil jain, a learned single judge has also taken a view that the national commission has been given powers to call for records of the state commission and if it comes to a conclusion that the state commission has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in it or has acted in excess of its jurisdiction, or has acted with material irregularity, the same can be rectified by the national commission. though the contention raised in the present writ petition that the expression 'consumer dispute' in section 21(b) of the act is confined to a consumer dispute, arising out an original complaint filed before the state commission, was not raised before the delhi high court in the aforesaid case, the view taken by the learned single judge of the delhi high court that the national commission has the power to call for the record of the state commission and has powers of revision under section 21(b) of the act where the state commission has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in it or has acted in excess of its jurisdiction, or has acted with material irregularity, supports our conclusion that a revision under section 21(b) of the act is maintainable before the national commission against an appellate-order or the state commission.a.k. patnaik, c.j.1. this is a petition under article 227 of the constitution of india against the order dated 16-9-2008, passed by the madhya pradesh state consumer redressal commission, bhopal, in first appeal no. 2513/2007 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the district consumer disputes redressal forum, indore, dismissing the complaint no. c. c. 357/2006.2. on 9-1-2009, a division bench of this court, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, observed that a question may arise for consideration whether an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner by way of revision under section 21 of the consumer protection act, 1986 (for short, 'the act'). accordingly, notice was issued to the respondent on this preliminary legal question.3. when this preliminary question was taken up for hearing today, mr. p.v. bhagvat, learned counsel for the petitioner, referred to the provisions of section 21 of the act to show that under clause (b) of section 21, the national commission has the power to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by the state commission where it appears to the national commission that such state commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. he submitted that the expression 'consumer dispute' has been defined in section 2(1)(e) of the act to mean 'a dispute where a person against whom a complaint has been made, denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint.' he submitted that the expression 'consumer dispute' in section 21(b), would, therefore, mean an original consumer dispute pending before the state commission, where a complaint is filed by the consumer before the state commission and allegations made in the complaint are denied by the other party. he submitted that if this is the meaning of 'consumer dispute' as defined in section 2(1)(e) of the act then under section 21(b), the national commission has no power to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any appeal pending or decided by the state commission and, therefore, a revision against an order passed by the state commission in a case where an original consumer dispute has arisen before the district forum, is not maintainable before the national commission. he submitted that this would mean that any order passed by the state commission in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction cannot be challenged in revision under section 21(b) of the act before the national commission. mr. p.v. bhagvat, alternatively submitted that in the event this court holds that a revision is maintainable under section 21(b) of the act before the national commission against an appellate order passed by the state commission, then the contention of the petitioner is that the revision before the national commission is not an effective remedy in the facts of the present case and that the high court should entertain the writ petition under article 227 of the constitution of india against the state commission.4. mr. sunil jain, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the delhi high court in cox and kings (i) ltd. v. raj kumar mittal and anr. 2009 ctj 122 (delhi high court) has taken a view that the act has provided an inbuilt mechanism for redressal of grievances of parties at three levels; one at the consumer forum, second at state commission level and the third at national commission level and that the national commission has been given powers to call for the records of the state commission and if it comes to a conclusion that the state commission has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in it or has acted in excess of its jurisdiction, or has acted with material irregularity, the same can be rectified by the national commission. he submitted that in the aforesaid decision, the delhi high court has also taken a view that the powers vested in the national commission are rather vast in nature than the powers to be exercised by this court under article 227 of the constitution of india and as the alternate remedy is available to a party, the party approaching the high court under article 227 of the constitution of india, would not be justified.5. we have considered the submissions of mr. bhagvat, and mr. sunil jain and we are of the opinion that a revision is maintainable against an appellate order passed by the state commission before the national commission under section 21(b) of the act for reasons which we will now indicate.6. section 2(1)(e) and section 21 of the act, on which reliance has been placed by mr. bhagvat are quoted hereinbelow:2. definitions.- (1) in this act, unless the context otherwise requires,:(e) 'consumer dispute' means a dispute where the person against whom a complaint has been made, denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint;21. jurisdiction of the national commission.- subject to the other provisions of this act, the national commission shall have jurisdiction:(a) to entertain:(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees one crore; and(ii) appeals against the orders of any state commission; and(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any state commission where it appears to the national commission that such state commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.7. the expression 'consumer dispute' defined in section 2(1)(e) of the act quoted above means a dispute where the person against whom a complaint has been made, denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint. this is only a definition of 'consumer dispute' and it means that where the consumer makes some allegations in the complaint against a party and that party denies or dispute the allegations contained in the complaint, there is a consumer dispute. in other words, where a consumer makes allegations against a party in a complaint, but the other party does not deny or dispute the allegations contained in the complaint, there is no consumer dispute. but what originates before a district forum or the state commission or the national commission is a complaint and not a consumer dispute. this will be clear from the language of section 11 of the act which confers on the district forum the jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs. this will be also clear from section 17 of the act which confers jurisdiction upon the state commission to entertain complaints where the value of goods and services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore. this will be further clear from the language of section 21 of the act which confers jurisdiction on the national commission to entertain complaints where the value of goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees one crore.8. moreover, a reading of section 2(1) of the act quoted above would show that the expressions mentioned in section 2(1) of the act are to mean as indicated in the various clauses mentioned therein 'unless the context otherwise requires'. hence, while reading the different expressions defined in section 2(1) of the act, the context in which the defined expression is used, has to be borne in mind. hence the expression 'consumer dispute', as defined in section 2(1)(e) of the act, will have to be understood keeping in mind the context of section 21(b) of the act. if we now read under section 21(b) of the act quoted above, it is clear that the national commission has the power to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any state commission, if it finds that the state commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. as defined in section 2(1)(e) of the act, a 'consumer dispute' means a dispute where a person against whom a complaint has been made, denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint. where, therefore, the allegations made in the complaint lodged before the district forum are denied by the other party, there is a consumer dispute. when the consumer forum decides the dispute one way or the other and the consumer or the other party files an appeal against the order passed by the district forum before the state commission and the state commission passes an order, the order that is passed by the state commission is an order passed in a consumer dispute. this is because even at the appellate stage when the state commission considers the matter, the allegations made in the complaint by the consumer continue to be disputed or denied by the other party and hence the appeal.9. further, the word 'any' preceding the expression 'consumer dispute' in section 21(b) would mean all or every dispute pending before the state commission. in shri balaganesan metals v. m.n. shanmugham chetty and ors. : (1987) 2 scc 707 : air 1987 sc 1668, the supreme court, relying on black's dictionary, has held:the word 'any' has the following meaning:some; one of many; an indefinite number. one indiscriminately of whatever kind or quantity.word 'any' has a diversity of meaning and may be employed to indicate 'all' or 'every' as well as 'some' or 'one' and its meaning in a given statute depends upon the context and the subject matter of the statute.it is often synonymous with 'either', 'every' or 'all'. its generality may be restricted by the context; (black's law dictionary, 5th edn.)10. the expression 'any' used in any statute will, therefore, have to be interpreted by courts by looking to the context in which it is used and looking to the context of section 21(b) of the act, we have no doubt that the word 'any consumer dispute' would mean not only consumer dispute arising out of an original complaint filed before the district forum, but also a consumer dispute arising out of an appeal from the orders of the district forum before the state commission.11. in the decision of delhi high court in cox and kings (i) ltd. v. raj kumar mittal and anr. (supra), cited by mr. sunil jain, a learned single judge has also taken a view that the national commission has been given powers to call for records of the state commission and if it comes to a conclusion that the state commission has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in it or has acted in excess of its jurisdiction, or has acted with material irregularity, the same can be rectified by the national commission. though the contention raised in the present writ petition that the expression 'consumer dispute' in section 21(b) of the act is confined to a consumer dispute, arising out an original complaint filed before the state commission, was not raised before the delhi high court in the aforesaid case, the view taken by the learned single judge of the delhi high court that the national commission has the power to call for the record of the state commission and has powers of revision under section 21(b) of the act where the state commission has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in it or has acted in excess of its jurisdiction, or has acted with material irregularity, supports our conclusion that a revision under section 21(b) of the act is maintainable before the national commission against an appellate-order or the state commission.12. mr. bhagvat, however, submitted that the law is settled that even where an alternative statutory remedy by way of appeal or revision is available, the high court can exercise powers under articles 226 and/or 227 of the constitution of india, if the remedy by way of appeal or revision is found by the high court as not to be effective remedy. mr. jain, submitted that since notice was issued in the writ petition only on the question of maintainability of revision before the national commission against the impugned order under section 21(b) of the act, the respondent has not filed reply to the pleadings made in the writ petition. two weeks' time is granted to file reply.list this matter after two weeks.