news details |
|
|
| HC quashes , return case to consumer forum | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Sept 18: Quashing the impugned orders, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has remitted back the case to the Divisional Forum for finding whether the consumer is covered by the definition of consumer.
This direction was passed by Justice Mansoor Ahmed Mir in a petition filed by the Executive Engineer Electricity and others challenging the awarded granted by the State Consumer Protection Commission and Divisional Consumer Forum Jammu
Justice Mir, after hearing Advocate AH Qazi for Consumer Commission and Divisional Consumer Forum, observed that the complainant has nowhere mentioned that he was running Atta Chaki Unit for commercial purposes for earning his livelihood after obtaining loan under the self employment scheme. Consumer Commission and Divisional Consumer Forum have lost sight of the legal aspect and have not discussed the said issue nor returned any finding in respect thereto, the HC further observed.
In the approved for reporting judgment, Justice Mir further observed that Consumer Commission and Consumer Forum have not even discussed whether the consumer of electricity is covered by the definition of a consumer. These respondents were under a legal obligation to return a finding whether the complainant was falling within definition of consumer and referred a judgment of the Supreme Court. Allowing the petition Justice Mir quashed the impugned orders of September 21, 2004 passed by State Commission and order dated August 22, 2003 passed by Divisional Consumer Forum and remitted back to the matter to the Divisional Consumer Forum.
The complainant had filed a complaint with the Consumer Forum Jammu for grant of compensation on the plea that petitioners had disconnected the electric connection illegally which was granted to him to run the Atta Chaki Unit.
In the appeal Deputy Additional General G Shaista Hakim, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the complaint was not maintainable as Consumer Commission and Consumer Forum were lacking jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. She further argued that complainant was running the Atta Chaki unit for commercial purpose thus it does not fall within definition of Section 2(d) of Consumers Act. .JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
