Civil Revision No. 2306 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2306 of 2009 Date of decision: 25.08.2009 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ....Petitioner versus The Lok Adalat District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Atul Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The respondent-tenant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, praying therein as under: - “g) The OPs should be directed to more careful and concerned to serve the customers and should also be directed to be courteous in their approach rather than making money by trapping/threatening customers under the false promises. ii) To pay Rs.2500/- on account of traveling and misc. charges for visiting the office of the OPs by the complainant umpteen times: iii) To pay Rs.35000/- as a cost of litigation. iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem reasonable in the circumstances aforesaid may also be granted in favour of the complainant and against the OPs.” Civil Revision No. 2306 of 2009 -2- The complaint was contested by respondents No. 1 and 2. However, vide order dated 20.2.2009, the complaint was disposed of by the Lok Adalat of District Forum-II by passing the following order: - “Evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. K.L. Chadha, Sh. Tarun Chadha and Smt. Nisha Chadha has been placed on record on behalf of the complainant. Copies supplied. Compromise has been arrived at between the parties with the efforts of Lok Adalat. Sh. R.S. Khural, Adv. proxy for Sh. Rajnish Narula, Adv. for OPs 1 and 2 has made a statement that he has gone through the affidavit furnished today by the complainant. In this affidavit, it has been specifically deposed that the complainants are having separate kitchens in the house. In view of the facts mentioned in these affidavits, OPs shall release the connection within seven days to the complainants. However, the complainants shall be themselves responsible for any mis-happening. In view of the above statement, learned counsel for the complainant along with Sh. K.L. Chadha, complainant has made a statement that he does not press this complaint and it be dismissed as withdrawn. In view of the statement made by the parties, this complaint stands dismissed as withdrawn. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost. After compliance file be consigned.” The petitioner thereafter moved an application for setting aside/recalling the order passed by the Lok Adalat, primarily on the plea that, the petitioner had not consented to the passing of the order by the Civil Revision No. 2306 of 2009 -3- Lok Adalat, nor any compromise was entered into between the parties, as mentioned in the order. It was specifically pleaded in the application, that complainant played fraud in getting the impugned order from the Lok Adalat. The case of the petitioner is, that instead of deciding the application, the learned District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh, was pleased to pass the following order: - “Additional affidavit of S. Malik has been placed on record on behalf of OPs 1 & 2. Copy supplied. Now, to come up on 28.04.2009 for filing of reply to the application on behalf of the complainant. In the meantime, the OPs shall comply the order dated 20.02.2009 within 3 days. The order is subject to the decision of the application dt. 09.04.2009. Copy of the order be given dasti.” The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order primarily on the ground, that as the petitioner had not consented to the passing of the order by the Lok Adalat, it was required to be recalled and complaint decided on merits by the District Forum. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the order of Lok Adalat being not a consent order, is not enforceable in law. The learned District Forum by way of impugned order, instead of deciding the application, is trying to implement the order, which cannot be sustained in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Ganpat Raj, 2006(8) Supreme Court Cases 364, to contend that in absence of compromise or settlement, no order could be passed by the Lok Adalat. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Civil Revision No. 2306 of 2009 -4- Division Bench of this Court in Sant Ram and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2008(4) Civil Court Cases 264, to contend that unless the award of the Lok Adalat is based on consent of the parties, it is a nullity and, therefore, not enforceable. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned order passed is otherwise against policy and instructions for supply of cylinders to a consumer. The notice of the revision petition was issued. In spite of service, nobody has chosen to appear on behalf of the respondents. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the case, and to determine the legality of the order passed, as the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside impugned order is pending with the District Forum-II. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner deserve to be accepted. The revision is allowed, the impugned order Annexure P-6 is quashed. The District Forum-II is directed to dispose of the application moved by the petitioner for recalling of the order in accordance with law, by passing speaking order. The order be passed with two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Revision allowed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 25, 2009 R.S.