Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(o) — Deficiency in service — Failure on part of service provider to facilitate utilization and enjoyment of plots, effect of — Respondents were allotted plots by appellant board upon depositing the 25% of price of plots — Respondents did not pay installments in terms of allotment letters due to failure on part of appellant to provide basic amenities at Mandi Area — On non-payment of installments, appellant imposed interest and penalty charges as prescribed in allotment letter — Respondents filed a complaint before District Forum alleging deficiency of services, failure to notify subject Mandi as Market Area and failure to develop and provide basic amenities in said locality — Appellant was directed By district Forum to withdraw demand notice and further directed not to charge any interest on installments — Appeal assailing order passed by National Commission, affirming order passed by State Commission, which further confirmed order passed by District Forum — Held, Appellant board as service provider is obligated to facilitate utilization and enjoyment of the plots as intended by allottees and set out in allotment letter — Inaction on part of appellant in providing requisite facilities for more than a decade clearly establishes deficiency of services as respondents were prevented from carrying out grain business — However, respondents were also incorrect in refusing to pay installments and violating the terms of installment letter — Thus, there is a need for proportionate relief as levy of penal interest and other charges on respondents will be grossly unfair — Adequate relief has been granted even to respondents/complainants by awarding interest @ 12 per cent per annum on entire deposited amounts — Appeal dismissed — Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 — Section 7 — Allotment of plots in market area — Duty to facilitate utilization.
Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh & Ors. v. Shantikunj Investment (P) Ltd.& Ors., (2006)4 SCC 109 & Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board v. Raj Pal, (2011)13 SCC 504, Referred.
(Para 7, 8 & 9)
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board v. Bishamber Dayal Goyal [Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal No. 3122/2006 (26/03/2014), 2014(4) SCALE 134: 2014(4) JT 354 [Gyan Sudha Misra, J.: Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21 — Non-refund of amount — Due to mismanagement on part of erstwhile chief promoter of Society, Effect of — Appellant Society constructed a housing complex and Respondent No.2 was the then Chief Promoter — In view of allegations against Respondent No.2 with respect to management of funds of Society, another Managing Committee took over — Respondent No.1 despite having paid all payments, was neither allotted any apartment nor refunded of the amount paid to Society — Consumer Forum passed as order against appellant Society as well as against respondent No.2 — Appeal by appellant society — Held, order passed against respondent No.2 was an ex-parte order as respondent No.2 was in jail — As respondent No.1 had made the payment when respondent No.2 was incharge of Society and present Managing Committee was not in the picture — Responsibility to refund amount primarily lies on respondent No.2 and in the event of his failure, on appellant Society — Accordingly, order passed is modified and respondent No.2 is held primarily responsible for paying the amount — Appeal allowed to this extent.
(Para 6, 8 & 9)
Pariwar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Chandrashekar M. Virkud [Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal No. 10240/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27607/2008) (12/11/2013), Civil Appeal No. 10240/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27607/2008) [H.L. Gokhale, J.: Kurian Joseph, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g) & 14(1)(d) — Just and reasonable compensation — Grant of — Held, it is the duty of the Tribunals, Commissions and the Courts to consider relevant facts and evidence in respect of facts and circumstances of each and every case for awarding just and reasonable compensation — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 168 — Just and reasonable compensation.
Ningamma and Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Jashuben & Ors, (2008) 4 SCC 162, R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors, (1995) 1 SCC 551, Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2011) 10 SCC 756, Ibrahim Vs. Raju, (2011) 10 SCC 634 & R.K. Malik Vs. Kiran Pal, (2009) 14 SCC 1, Referred.
(Para 84)
Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha [Bench Strength 2], CA No.2867/2012 with CA No.692/2012 with CA No.2866/2012 with CA No.731/2012 & CA No.858/2012 (24/10/2013), 2013(14) JT 47: 2013(13) SCALE 1: 2013(7) Supreme 323: 2013(8) SLT 513: 2014(1) SCC 384 [Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.: V. Gopala Gowda, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g) & 14(1)(d) — Life expectancy of healthy person — Held, life expectancy of a healthy person in the present age is estimated as 70 years.
(Para 133)
Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha [Bench Strength 2], CA No.2867/2012 with CA No.692/2012 with CA No.2866/2012 with CA No.731/2012 & CA No.858/2012 (24/10/2013), 2013(14) JT 47: 2013(13) SCALE 1: 2013(7) Supreme 323: 2013(8) SLT 513: 2014(1) SCC 384 [Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.: V. Gopala Gowda, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g) & 14(1)(d) — Vicarious liability of hospital — Held, Hospital is vicariously liable for its doctors — Torts — Vicarious liability — Liability of hospital for it’s doctors.
Savita Garg Vs. Director, National Heart Institute, (2004) 8 SCC 56, Relied on.
(Para 109)
Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha [Bench Strength 2], CA No.2867/2012 with CA No.692/2012 with CA No.2866/2012 with CA No.731/2012 & CA No.858/2012 (24/10/2013), 2013(14) JT 47: 2013(13) SCALE 1: 2013(7) Supreme 323: 2013(8) SLT 513: 2014(1) SCC 384 [Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.: V. Gopala Gowda, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g) & 14(1)(d) — Addition towards future loss of income — Medical negligence, Death due to, Entitlement to — Held, 30% should be added towards future loss of income of deceased.
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 & Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421, Relied on.
(Para 132)
Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha [Bench Strength 2], CA No.2867/2012 with CA No.692/2012 with CA No.2866/2012 with CA No.731/2012 & CA No.858/2012 (24/10/2013), 2013(14) JT 47: 2013(13) SCALE 1: 2013(7) Supreme 323: 2013(8) SLT 513: 2014(1) SCC 384 [Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.: V. Gopala Gowda, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g) & 14(1)(d) — Medical negligence — Claim under head of emotional distress, pain and suffering, Effect of — Held, claim under head of `Emotional distress, pain and suffering for the claimant’ bears no direct link with the negligence.
(Para 46)
Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha [Bench Strength 2], CA No.2867/2012 with CA No.692/2012 with CA No.2866/2012 with CA No.731/2012 & CA No.858/2012 (24/10/2013), 2013(14) JT 47: 2013(13) SCALE 1: 2013(7) Supreme 323: 2013(8) SLT 513: 2014(1) SCC 384 [Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.: V. Gopala Gowda, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g) & 14(1)(d) — Medical negligence — Expenses towards cost of litigation, Grant of — Death of claimants’ wife due to medical negligence — Claimant is a doctor by profession, appeared in person to argue his case — Held, it is acknowledged that he might have required rigorous assistance of lawyers to prepare his case and produce evidence in order — Therefore, compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- under the head of `legal expenses’ is granted and total amount of Rs. 11,50,000/- is granted to the claimant under the head of `cost of litigation’.
(Para 99)
Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha [Bench Strength 2], CA No.2867/2012 with CA No.692/2012 with CA No.2866/2012 with CA No.731/2012 & CA No.858/2012 (24/10/2013), 2013(14) JT 47: 2013(13) SCALE 1: 2013(7) Supreme 323: 2013(8) SLT 513: 2014(1) SCC 384 [Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.: V. Gopala Gowda, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g) & 14(1)(d) — Compensation towards travel expenses — Grant of — Death of claimants’ wife due to medical negligence — Claimant, a citizen of U.S.A. and had been living there — Held, claimant did not produce any record of plane fare to prove his travel expenditure from U.S.A. to India to attend the proceedings — Therefore, on an average, compensation of Rs.10 lakhs awarded under the head of `Travel expenses over the past twelve years’.
(Para 99)
Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha [Bench Strength 2], CA No.2867/2012 with CA No.692/2012 with CA No.2866/2012 with CA No.731/2012 & CA No.858/2012 (24/10/2013), 2013(14) JT 47: 2013(13) SCALE 1: 2013(7) Supreme 323: 2013(8) SLT 513: 2014(1) SCC 384 [Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.: V. Gopala Gowda, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g) & 14(1)(d) — Damages for loss of employment for traveling from U.S.A. to India — Disentitlement to — Death of claimants’ wife due to medical negligence — Claimant, a citizen of U.S.A. and had been living there — Held, claim made by claimant under the head of loss of income for missed work, cannot be allowed by this Court since, the same has no direct nexus with the negligence of the appellant-doctors and the Hospital.
(Para 99)
Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha [Bench Strength 2], CA No.2867/2012 with CA No.692/2012 with CA No.2866/2012 with CA No.731/2012 & CA No.858/2012 (24/10/2013), 2013(14) JT 47: 2013(13) SCALE 1: 2013(7) Supreme 323: 2013(8) SLT 513: 2014(1) SCC 384 [Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.: V. Gopala Gowda, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g) & 14(1)(d) — Non-grant of interest on compensation — Pendency of complaint before NC for long time, Effect of — Death of claimants’ wife due to medical negligence — Case was pending before National and this Court for the long period of 15 years — National Commission awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum but only in case of default by the doctors of AMRI Hospital to pay the compensation within stipulated time — Held, National Commission committed error in not awarding interest on the compensation awarded by it and the same is opposed to various decisions of this Court.
Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr., (2009) 7 SCC 372 & Kemp and Kemp on Quantum of Damages, (Special Edn., 1986), Relied on.
(Para 100)
Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha [Bench Strength 2], CA No.2867/2012 with CA No.692/2012 with CA No.2866/2012 with CA No.731/2012 & CA No.858/2012 (24/10/2013), 2013(14) JT 47: 2013(13) SCALE 1: 2013(7) Supreme 323: 2013(8) SLT 513: 2014(1) SCC 384 [Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.: V. Gopala Gowda, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g) & 14(1)(d) — Medical negligence — Compensation towards pain and suffering during treatment, Entitlement to — Death of claimants’ wife due to medical negligence — Held, deceased had gone through immense pain, mental agony and suffering in course of her treatment which ultimately could not save her life — A lumpsum amount of Rs.10 lakhs is awarded to the claimant following the Nizam Institute’s case and also applying the principles laid in Kemp and Kemp on the “Quantum of Damages”, under the head of `pain and suffering of the claimant’s wife during the course of treatment’.
Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Prasanth S. Dhananka & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 1 & Kemp and Kemp on Quantum of Damages, (Special Edn., 1986), Relied on.
Arun Kumar Agarwal Vs. National Insurance Company, (2010) 9 SCC 218 & Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajvir Singh and Ors., 2013 (6) SCALE 563, Referred.
(Para 145)
Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha [Bench Strength 2], CA No.2867/2012 with CA No.692/2012 with CA No.2866/2012 with CA No.731/2012 & CA No.858/2012 (24/10/2013), 2013(14) JT 47: 2013(13) SCALE 1: 2013(7) Supreme 323: 2013(8) SLT 513: 2014(1) SCC 384 [Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.: V. Gopala Gowda, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g) & 14(1)(d) — Medical negligence — Liability of junior doctor holding PG degree — Death of claimants’ wife due to medical negligence — Appellant was held liable alongwith hospital and senior doctors and his liability fixed at Rs.25,93,000 towards compensation to husband of deceased — Held, it is acknowledged that appellant, being a junior doctor who might have acted on the direction of the senior doctors who undertook the treatment of the claimant’s wife in AMRI-Hospital — However, he was an independent medical practitioner with a post graduate degree and still stood as a second fiddle and perpetuated the negligence in giving treatment to the claimant’s wife — Since he is a junior doctor whose contribution to the negligence is far less than the senior doctors involved, therefore this Court directs him to pay a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the claimant, as a reminder and deterrent to him against being casual and passive in treating his patients in his formative years of medical profession.
Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, (2009) 9 SCC 221, Relied on.
(Para 122)
Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha [Bench Strength 2], CA No.2867/2012 with CA No.692/2012 with CA No.2866/2012 with CA No.731/2012 & CA No.858/2012 (24/10/2013), 2013(14) JT 47: 2013(13) SCALE 1: 2013(7) Supreme 323: 2013(8) SLT 513: 2014(1) SCC 384 [Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.: V. Gopala Gowda, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g) & 14(1)(d) — Compensation for loss of dependency — Use of multiplier method to determine, Justifiability of — Death of claimants’ wife due to medical negligence — Deceased was a recent graduate in Psychology from a highly prestigious Ivy League School in New York — Held, National Commission or this Court requires to determine just, fair and reasonable compensation on the basis of the income that was being earned by the deceased at the time of her death and other related claims on account of death of the wife of the claimant — Determination of compensation by following the multiplier method does not justify under the head of loss of dependency.
Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha & Ors, (1995) 6 SCC 651, Spring Meadows Hospital & Anr. Vs. Harjol Ahluwalia, (1998) 4 SCC 39, Charan Singh Vs. Healing Touch Hospital, (2002) 7 SCC 668, J.J. Merchants & Ors. Vs. Srinath Chaturbedi, Savita Garg Vs. Director, National Heart Institute, (2004) 8 SCC 56, State of Punjab Vs. Shiv Ram & Ors., Samira Kholi Vs. Dr. Prabha Manchanda & Anr., P.G. Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Jaspal Singh & Ors., Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Prasanth S. Dhananka & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 1, Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, (2009) 9 SCC 221, & V. Kishan Rao Vs. Nikhil Superspeciality Hospital & Anr., Relied on.
(Para 98)
Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha [Bench Strength 2], CA No.2867/2012 with CA No.692/2012 with CA No.2866/2012 with CA No.731/2012 & CA No.858/2012 (24/10/2013), 2013(14) JT 47: 2013(13) SCALE 1: 2013(7) Supreme 323: 2013(8) SLT 513: 2014(1) SCC 384 [Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.: V. Gopala Gowda, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g) & 14(1)(d) — Finding of contributory negligence — Setting aside of — Death of claimants’ wife due to medical negligence — National Commission deducted 10% from the total compensation, holding claimant responsible for contributory negligence — Held, claimant though over-anxious, did to the patient what was necessary as a part of the treatment — Hence, finding of National Commission set aside and re-emphasize the finding of this Court that the claimant did not contribute to the negligence of the appellants-doctors and AMRI Hospital which resulted in the death of his wife.
Malay Kumar Ganguly Vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, (2009) 9 SCC 221, Relied on.
(Para 125 & 127)
Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha [Bench Strength 2], CA No.2867/2012 with CA No.692/2012 with CA No.2866/2012 with CA No.731/2012 & CA No.858/2012 (24/10/2013), 2013(14) JT 47: 2013(13) SCALE 1: 2013(7) Supreme 323: 2013(8) SLT 513: 2014(1) SCC 384 [Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.: V. Gopala Gowda, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g) & 14(1)(d) — Quantum of compensation — Inflation of money, Consideration of — Death of claimants’ wife due to medical negligence — Appeal for enhancement of compensation by claimant — Held, National Commission has rejected the claim of the claimant for “inflation” made by him without assigning any reason whatsoever — Claim remained pending before National Commission and this Court for the last 15 years and value of money claimed is devalued to a great extent — Therefore, claim for enhancement of compensation by the claimant in his appeal is justified.
Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2009) 13 SCC 422, Relied on.
(Para 81 & 82)
HELD: The C.I.I. is determined by the Finance Ministry of Union of India every year in order to appreciate the level of devaluation of money each year. Using the C.I.I. as published by the Government of India, the original claim of Rs.77.7 crores preferred by the claimant in 1998 would be equivalent to Rs.188.6 crores as of 2013 and, therefore the enhanced claim preferred by the claimant before the National Commission and before this Court is legally justifiable as this Court is required to determine the just, fair and reasonable compensation. Therefore, the contention urged by the appellant-doctors and the AMRI Hospital that in the absence of pleadings in the claim petition before the National Commission and also in the light of the incident that the subsequent application filed by the claimant seeking for amendment to the claim in the prayer of the complainant being rejected, the additional claim made by the claimant cannot be examined for grant of compensation under different heads is wholly unsustainable in law in view of the decisions rendered by this Court in the aforesaid cases. Therefore, this Court is required to consider the relevant aspect of the matter namely, that there has been steady inflation which should have been considered over period of 15 years and that money has been devalued greatly. Therefore, the decision of the National Commission in confining the grant of compensation to the original claim of Rs.77.7 crores preferred by the claimant under different heads and awarding meager compensation under the different heads in the impugned judgment, is wholly unsustainable in law as the same is contrary to the legal principles laid down by this Court in catena of cases referred to supra. We, therefore, allow the claim of the claimant on enhancement of compensation to the extent to be directed by this Court.
(Para 82)
Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha [Bench Strength 2], CA No.2867/2012 with CA No.692/2012 with CA No.2866/2012 with CA No.731/2012 & CA No.858/2012 (24/10/2013), 2013(14) JT 47: 2013(13) SCALE 1: 2013(7) Supreme 323: 2013(8) SLT 513: 2014(1) SCC 384 [Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.: V. Gopala Gowda, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21 — Manufacturing defect in vehicle — Direction to provide new vehicle modified with replacement of chassis by NC, Legality of — Chassis of brand new three wheeler motor vehicle of appellant, a physically challenged person, broke down within a short period — District Forum considering it a manufacturing defect allowed complaint and directed respondents to make available new vehicle — National Commission in revision petition modified direction of new vehicle with direction to replace chassis with a brand new one with fresh warranty — Appeal — Held, National Commission did not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the finding recorded by District Forum on issue of deficiency in service or in conclusion recorded by District Forum that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle sold to appellant — Therefore, by interfering with order of District Forum, National Commission transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction — Appeal allowed — Respondents to implement order of District Forum.
Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2011) 11 SCC 269, Referred.
(Para 14 & 15)
Momna Gauri v. Regional Manager [Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal No. 8815/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25770/2012) (27/09/2013), 2013(14) SCALE 82 [G.S. Singhvi, J.: C. Nagappan, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(c), 2(1)(g) & 11 — Sale of plot of land simpliciter — Whether covered under the Act? — Held, when it comes to “housing construction”, same has been specifically covered under the definition of ‘service’ by an amendment inserted by Act 50 of 1993 with effect from 18th June, 1993 — On the other hand, where a sale of plot of land simpliciter is concerned, and if there is any complaint, the same would not be covered under the said Act.
(Para 6)
Ganeshlal v. Shyam [Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal No. 331/2007 (26/09/2013), Civil Appeal No. 331/2007 [H.L. Gokhale, J.: J. Chelameswar, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(c), 2(1)(g) & 11 — Dispute of sale of plot of land simpliciter — Determination by Consumer Forum, Execution of sale deed in pursuant to, Effect of — Appellant agreed to sell a plot of land to respondent by virtue of an agreement — On failure of appellant to hand over the possession of the concerned plot of land, respondent filed a complaint — District Forum passed an order directing appellant to deliver possession of concerned plot of land — Appeal against grant of relief to respondent by consumer forum — Held, since appellant executed the sale deed, and the concerned plot of land has been handed over to respondent, appellant cannot be granted any relief, namely to dismiss the complaint which was filed in District Consumer Forum which has now been entertained and acted upon by the conduct of appellant himself.
(Para 7)
Ganeshlal v. Shyam [Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal No. 331/2007 (26/09/2013), Civil Appeal No. 331/2007 [H.L. Gokhale, J.: J. Chelameswar, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 24-A, 21 & 12 — Complaint — Filed after expiry of statutory limitation — Duty of consumer forum — Held, statutory period of limitation of 2 years from date of accrual of cause of action is unambiguous — Consumer forum must feel convinced that the same has been filed within the period of limitation or that the complainant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for delayed filing of the complaint.
HELD; A reading of Sections 12 and 24A makes it clear that a complaint filed after expiry of two years counted from the date of accrual of cause of action cannot be admitted by any Consumer Forum unless the complainant is able to show that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the prescribed period and the concerned forum records reasons for condoning the delay. The embargo contained in Section 24-A against admission of a complaint is unambiguous and if that section is read in conjunction with Section 12, which prescribes the procedure for entertaining the complaint, it becomes clear that before admitting a complaint and issuing process, the Consumer Forum must feel convinced that the same has been filed within the period of limitation or that the complainant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for delayed filing of the complaint.
(Para 15)
Muneesh Devi v. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. [Bench Strength 3], C.A. No. 4075/2013 (19/07/2013), 2013(10) SCC 478: 2013(9) SCALE 640: 2013(4) SCV(Civil) 567 [G.S. Singhvi, J.: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.: V. Gopala Gowda, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 24-A & 21 — Limitation — 156 days delay in filing complaint — Non-consideration delay due to proceedings before other for a — Complaint for compensation by dependent widow of deceased who was died due to burst of transformer — Initially suit was file before Civil Court which was not allowed to prosecute for want of court fees — Application for waiver of court fees was also dismissed — Thereafter appellant approached the writ court seeking mandamus for awarding compensation which was unsuccessful — SLP against the same was also dismissed summarily — Last resort was made by filing complaint for awarding compensation of Rs. 25 lacs before National Commission which was dismissed on limitation — Challenged — Held, appellant has mentioned all facts of previous litigation in the application for condonation of delay — The National Commission completely ignored the fact that the appellant is not well educated and she had throughout relied upon the legal advice tendered to her — It has neither pleaded nor any material is on record to infer that the appellant had not acted bona fide before the judicial for a — Therefore, it was an eminently fit case for exercise of power under Section 24- A(2) of the Act — Impugned order is set aside and delay is condoned — Matter is remitted back to consider on merits.
HELD: The National Commission did not take cognizance of the appellant’s assertion that before filing the complaint, she had pursued remedies before the civil Court, the High Court and this Court and dismissed the complaint as barred by time by simply observing that she could not substantiate her assertion of having made representation dated 28.7.2000.
In the application filed by her for condonation of delay, the appellant made copious references to the civil suit, the writ petition and the special leave petition filed by her and the fact that the complaint filed by her was admitted after considering the issue of limitation. She also pleaded that the cause for claiming compensation was continuing. The National Commission completely ignored the fact that the appellant is not well educated and she had throughout relied upon the legal advice tendered to her. She first filed civil suit which, as mentioned above, was dismissed due to non payment of deficient court fees. She then filed writ petition before the High Court and special leave petition before this Court for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to pay the amount of compensation, but did not succeed. It can reasonably be presumed that substantial time was consumed in availing these remedies. It was neither the pleaded case of respondent No.1 nor any material was produced before the National Commission to show that in pursuing remedies before the judicial forums, the appellant had not acted bona fide. Therefore, it was an eminently fit case for exercise of power under Section 24-A(2) of the Act. Unfortunately, the National Commission rejected the appellant’s prayer for condonation of delay on a totally flimsy ground that she had not been able to substantiate the assertion about her having made representation to the respondents for grant of compensation.
(Para 16)
In view of the above, we hold that the impugned order is legally unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.
(Para 17)
In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside. The delay in filing of complaint by the appellant under Section 21 of the Act is condoned and the matter is remitted to the National Commission for disposal thereof on merits.
(Para 18)
Muneesh Devi v. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. [Bench Strength 3], C.A. No. 4075/2013 (19/07/2013), 2013(10) SCC 478: 2013(9) SCALE 640: 2013(4) SCV(Civil) 567 [G.S. Singhvi, J.: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.: V. Gopala Gowda, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 11, 4, 7 & 27 — Interests of consumer — Care taking and dispute resolution mechanism — Object of legislation — Discussed.
HELD: The 1986 Act was enacted by Parliament in the backdrop of the fact that India has signed Consumer Protection Resolution No. 39 of 248 passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations. With a view to fulfil the objectives enshrined in the guidelines adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations and keeping in view the proliferation., of international trade and commerce and vast expansion of business and trade which resulted in availability of variety of consumer goods in the market, the Consumer Protection Bill was introduced in Parliament to provide for better protection of the interest of consumers.
(Para 9)
Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Tej Refrigeration Industries Ltd. [Bench Strength 2], C.A. No. 5852/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14452/2013) (16/07/2013), 2013(9) SCALE 635 [G.S. Singhvi, J.: V. Gopala Gowda, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 24-A & 12 — Complaint — Filed after statutory limitation — Requirement to decide limitation — Held, Sections 12 and 24A makes it clear that a complaint filed after expiry of two years counted from the date of accrual of cause of action cannot be admitted by any Consumer Forum unless the complainant is able to show that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the prescribed period and the concerned forum records reasons for condoning the delay — The Consumer Forum must feel convinced that the same has been filed within the period of limitation or that the complainant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for delayed filing of the complaint.
HELD: A reading of Sections 12 and 24A makes it clear that a complaint filed after expiry of two years counted from the date of accrual of cause of action cannot be admitted by any Consumer Forum unless the complainant is able to show that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the prescribed period and the concerned forum records reasons for condoning the delay. The embargo contained in Section 24-A against admission of a complaint is unambiguous and if that section is read in conjunction with Section 12, which prescribes the procedure for entertaining the complaint, it becomes clear that before admitting a complaint and issuing process, the Consumer Forum must feel convinced that the same has been filed within the period of limitation or that the complainant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for delayed filing of the complaint.
(Para 11)
Unfortunately, most of the Consumer Forums in the country do not follow the provisions of Section 12 read with Section 24A and large number of complaints are entertained without considering the issue of limitation. This results in over burdening of the dockets of Consumer Forums and consequential delay in the disposal of other deserving cases.
(Para 12)
Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Tej Refrigeration Industries Ltd. [Bench Strength 2], C.A. No. 5852/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14452/2013) (16/07/2013), 2013(9) SCALE 635 [G.S. Singhvi, J.: V. Gopala Gowda, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 24-A & 12 — Limitation — Complaint filed after six years accrual of cause of action — Allowed without deciding limitation despite objection — District Forum allowed complaint of respondent against appellant which was filed after six years of cancellation of allotment of plot in question — Respondent neither filed application for condonation of delay nor District Forum decided it despite specific defence of limitation set up by appellant Board — State Commission and National Commission did not interfere with the order — Challenged — Held, the order passed by the District Forum without even adverting to the issue of limitation was ex-facie without jurisdiction and the State Commission and the National Commission committed serious error by dismissing the appeal and the revision filed against the order of the District Forum, consequently appeal is allowed and order passed by lower fora are set aside as time barred.
(Para 14 & 15)
Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Tej Refrigeration Industries Ltd. [Bench Strength 2], C.A. No. 5852/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14452/2013) (16/07/2013), 2013(9) SCALE 635 [G.S. Singhvi, J.: V. Gopala Gowda, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Object of enactment — Held, the Act was enacted to provide for the better protection of interest of consumers, such as the right to be protected against marketing of goods which are hazardous to life and property; the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods, to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices; and right to seek redressal against an unscrupulous exploitation of consumers, and further to provide right to consumer education etc.
(Para 10)
Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Director, Health Services, Haryana [Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal No. 5476/2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11381/2012) (11/07/2013), 2013 AIR(SC) 3060: 2013(10) SCC 136: 2013(9) SCALE 103: 2013(5) Supreme 631: 2013(4) SCV(Civil) 501 [B.S. Chauhan, J.: S.A. Bobde, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 11, 17, 21 & 2(1)(d)(ii) — Approach to Forum for retiral benefits by government servant — Allowability — Appellant/Medical Officer took voluntary retirement — Preferred complaint for non-payment of retiral benefits, and deduction of penal rent from his dues of retiral benefits without giving any show cause notice to him — Rejection — Challenged — Held, by no stretch of imagination a government servant can raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral benefits before any of the Forum under the Act — The appropriate forum, for redressal of any his grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or Civil Court but certainly not a Forum under the Act.
Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, (1994) 4 SCC 225, Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa v. Santosh Kumar Sahoo & Anr., AIR 2010 SC 3553, Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, AIR 2010 SC 93, Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, (2010) 11 SCC 159 & Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Bhavani, AIR 2008 SC 2957, Referred.
(Para 16, 17 & 18)
HELD: Statutory provisions make it crystal clear that the Act is made to deal with the rights of consumers wherein marketing of goods, or “services” as defined under the Act have been provided. Therefore, the question does arise as to whether the Forum under the Act can deal with the service matters of government servants.
(Para 11)
In view of the above, it is evident that by no stretch of imagination a government servant can raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral benefits before any of the Forum under the Act. The government servant does not fall under the definition of a “consumer” as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Such government servant is entitled to claim his retiral benefits strictly in accordance with his service conditions and regulations or statutory rules framed for that purpose. The appropriate forum, for redressal of any his grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or Civil Court but certainly not a Forum under the Act.
(Para 16)
Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Director, Health Services, Haryana [Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal No. 5476/2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11381/2012) (11/07/2013), 2013 AIR(SC) 3060: 2013(10) SCC 136: 2013(9) SCALE 103: 2013(5) Supreme 631: 2013(4) SCV(Civil) 501 [B.S. Chauhan, J.: S.A. Bobde, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Electricity Act, 2003 — Sections 173, 174 & 175 — Electricity Act, 2003 and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Inconsistency between, Effect of — Held, in case of inconsistency between the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act will prevail, but ipso facto it will not vest the Consumer Forum with the power to redress any dispute with regard to the matters which do not come within the meaning of “service” or “complaint” — Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(o) & 2(1)(c) — Redressal of dispute.
(Para 43 & 47(i))
HELD: The inconsistency would arise only if the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 run counter to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or if while enforcing provision on one statute, provisions of other statute is violated. We find that the entire object and reasons of Consumer Protection Act is not crossed over by the Electricity Act, 2003 and whenever such situation arise the Electricity Act, 2003 has left the option open for the consumer to take recourse under other Laws.
(Para 43)
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. v. Anis Ahmad [Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal No. 5466/2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 35906/2011) (01/07/2013), 2013(3) SCV(Civil) 401: 2013 AIR(SC) 2766: 2013(8) SCC 491: 2013(10) JT 610: 2013(9) SCALE 334: 2013(5) Supreme 642: 2013(9) SLT 554 [G.S. Singhvi, J.: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Electricity Act, 2003 — Section 126 — Transaction under — Whether a complaint? — Held, nature of transaction under Section 126 does not come within the ambit of “complaint” — Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(g) — Deficiency of service.
(Para 20)
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. v. Anis Ahmad [Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal No. 5466/2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 35906/2011) (01/07/2013), 2013(3) SCV(Civil) 401: 2013 AIR(SC) 2766: 2013(8) SCC 491: 2013(10) JT 610: 2013(9) SCALE 334: 2013(5) Supreme 642: 2013(9) SLT 554 [G.S. Singhvi, J.: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Complaint in respect of supply of electrical or other energy — When maintainable? — Held, a consumer may file a valid complaint in respect of supply of electrical or other energy, if the complaint contains allegation of unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice; or there is a defective goods; deficiency in services; hazardous services or a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law etc.
(Para 23)
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. v. Anis Ahmad [Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal No. 5466/2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 35906/2011) (01/07/2013), 2013(3) SCV(Civil) 401: 2013 AIR(SC) 2766: 2013(8) SCC 491: 2013(10) JT 610: 2013(9) SCALE 334: 2013(5) Supreme 642: 2013(9) SLT 554 [G.S. Singhvi, J.: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(e) — Assessment of “unauthorized use of electricity — Whether a consumer dispute? — Held, after notice of provisional assessment to the person indulged in unauthorized use of electricity, the final decision by an assessing officer, who is a public servant, on the assessment of “unauthorized use of electricity is a “Quasi Judicial” decision and does not fall within the meaning of “consumer dispute” — Electricity Act, 2003 — Section 126 — Assessment of “unauthorized use of electricity — Nature of decision of.
(Para 30)
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. v. Anis Ahmad [Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal No. 5466/2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 35906/2011) (01/07/2013), 2013(3) SCV(Civil) 401: 2013 AIR(SC) 2766: 2013(8) SCC 491: 2013(10) JT 610: 2013(9) SCALE 334: 2013(5) Supreme 642: 2013(9) SLT 554 [G.S. Singhvi, J.: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(c), 2(1)(b) & 2(1)(d) — Person availing services for commercial purpose — Whether a consumer? — Held, person(s) availing services for ‘commercial purpose’ do not fall within the meaning of “consumer” and cannot be a “complainant” for the purpose of filing a “complaint” before the Consumer Forum.
(Para 22)
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. v. Anis Ahmad [Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal No. 5466/2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 35906/2011) (01/07/2013), 2013(3) SCV(Civil) 401: 2013 AIR(SC) 2766: 2013(8) SCC 491: 2013(10) JT 610: 2013(9) SCALE 334: 2013(5) Supreme 642: 2013(9) SLT 554 [G.S. Singhvi, J.: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(e) — Consumer dispute — Elements for — Held, for a valid consumer dispute an assertion and denial of a valid complaint is must.
(Para 18)
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. v. Anis Ahmad [Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal No. 5466/2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 35906/2011) (01/07/2013), 2013(3) SCV(Civil) 401: 2013 AIR(SC) 2766: 2013(8) SCC 491: 2013(10) JT 610: 2013(9) SCALE 334: 2013(5) Supreme 642: 2013(9) SLT 554 [G.S. Singhvi, J.: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 3, 2(1)(c) & 2(1)(d) — Complaint against assessment under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 — Electrical connections for industrial/commercial purpose, Absence of allegation stipulated under Section 2(1)(c), Effect of — Held, complainants had electrical connections for industrial/commercial purpose and, therefore, they do not come within the meaning of “consumer”; they cannot be treated as “complainant” nor they are entitled to file any “complaint” before the Consumer Forum — In absence of any allegation of unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice or there is deficiency in service(s) or hazardous service(s) or price fixed by the appellant(s) is excess to the price fixed under any law etc, their complaints were not maintainable — Electricity Act, 2003 — Section 126 — Assessment order — Complaint before Consumer forum, Maintainability of.
(Para 24, 25 & 26)
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. v. Anis Ahmad [Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal No. 5466/2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 35906/2011) (01/07/2013), 2013(3) SCV(Civil) 401: 2013 AIR(SC) 2766: 2013(8) SCC 491: 2013(10) JT 610: 2013(9) SCALE 334: 2013(5) Supreme 642: 2013(9) SLT 554 [G.S. Singhvi, J.: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(o) & 2(1)(c) — Electricity matters — Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum to decide, Scope — Held, Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of “consumer” under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State Government or association of consumers but it is limited to the dispute relating to “unfair trade practice” or a “restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider”; or “if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service”; or “hazardous service”; or “the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law” — Electricity Act, 2003 — Sections 126, 135 to 140 — Complaint before Consumer Forum, Maintainability of.
(Para 47(iii))
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. v. Anis Ahmad [Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal No. 5466/2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 35906/2011) (01/07/2013), 2013(3) SCV(Civil) 401: 2013 AIR(SC) 2766: 2013(8) SCC 491: 2013(10) JT 610: 2013(9) SCALE 334: 2013(5) Supreme 642: 2013(9) SLT 554 [G.S. Singhvi, J.: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 3, 2(1)(b), 2(1)(c) & 2(1)(d) — Unauthorized use of electricity — Complaint before consumer Forum, Maintainability of — Held, Consumer Forum cannot derive power to adjudicate a dispute in relation to assessment made under Section 126 or offences under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, as the acts of indulging in “unauthorized use of electricity” as defined under Section 126 or committing offence under Sections 135 to 140 do not fall within the meaning of “complaint” as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Acts of indulgence in “unauthorized use of electricity” by a person, neither has any relationship with “unfair trade practice” or “restrictive trade practice” or “deficiency in service” nor does it amounts to hazardous services by the licensee — Such acts of “unauthorized use of electricity” has nothing to do with charging price in excess of the price — Therefore, acts of person in indulging in ‘unauthorized use of electricity’, do not fall within the meaning of “complaint”, and, therefore, the “complaint” against assessment under Section 126 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum — Since offences referred to in Sections 135 to 140 can be tried only by a Special Court constituted under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003, in that view of the matter also the complaint against any action taken under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum — Electricity Act, 2003 — Sections 126, 135 to 140 — Action under — Complaint before Consumer Forum against, Maintainability of.
(Para 45, 46 & 47)
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. v. Anis Ahmad [Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal No. 5466/2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 35906/2011) (01/07/2013), 2013(3) SCV(Civil) 401: 2013 AIR(SC) 2766: 2013(8) SCC 491: 2013(10) JT 610: 2013(9) SCALE 334: 2013(5) Supreme 642: 2013(9) SLT 554 [G.S. Singhvi, J.: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 3, 12 & 2(1)(d) — Right to seek remedy under the Act — Availability of alternate remedy under special statute, Effect of — Appellants were enrolled as members of respondent No.1-Cooperative Group Housing Society — They applied for flats, which were being constructed by respondent No.1 and deposited the installments of price — Respondent No.1 returned the amount deposited by the appellants and indirectly terminated their membership — Appellants challenged by filing complaints under Consumer Protection Act — Respondent No.1 raised the objection regarding maintainability of complaints in view of Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 — District Forum overruled the objections raised by respondent No.1 but dismissed the complaints by observing that there was no deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.1 — Appeals and the revisions filed by the appellants were dismissed by the State Commission and the National Commission respectively solely on the ground that the appellants cannot be treated as consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act — Challenged before Supreme Court — Held, in the complaints, the appellants had primarily challenged the action of respondent No.1 to refund the amounts deposited by them and thereby extinguished their entitlement to get the flats — Therefore, the mere fact that the action taken by respondent No.1 was approved by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies and higher authorities, cannot deprive the appellants of their legitimate right to seek remedy under the Act, which is in addition to the other remedies available to them under the Cooperative Societies Act — Appeals allowed — Matters are remanded to the State Commission with the direction to decide the appeals on merits after giving opportunities of hearing to the parties.
Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha, (2004) 1 SCC 305, Kishore Lal v. ESI Corporation, (2007) 4 SCC 579, National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy, (2012) 2 SCC 506, Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. v. N.K. Modi, (1996) 6 SCC 385, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (supra), Skypak Couriers Ltd. v. Tata Chemicals Ltd., (2000) 5 SCC 294 & Trans Mediterranean Airways v. Universal Exports, (2011) 10 SCC 316, Referred.
(Para 14 & 16)
Virender Jain v. Alaknanda Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited [Bench Strength 3], Civil Appeal No. 64/2010 (23/04/2013), 2013(9) SCC 383: 2013(9) JT 92: 2013(6) SCALE 571 [G.S. Singhvi, J.: Ranjana Prakash Desai, J.: S.A. Bobde, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Members of Co-operative Group Housing Society — Whether consumers? — Held, appellants, who had deposited the installments of price for the flats being constructed by respondent No.1 are covered by the definition of `consumer’ contained in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and the contrary view expressed by the National Commission in B.K. Prabha v. Secretary Kendriya Upadyarasanga, (2004) 2 CLT 305, which has been reiterated in the impugned order is not correct.
Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243 & Chandigarh Housing Board v. Avtar Singh, (2010) 10 SCC 194, Relied on.
B.K. Prabha v. Secretary Kendriya Upadyarasanga, (2004) 2 CLT 305, Overruled.
(Para 12)
Virender Jain v. Alaknanda Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited [Bench Strength 3], Civil Appeal No. 64/2010 (23/04/2013), 2013(9) SCC 383: 2013(9) JT 92: 2013(6) SCALE 571 [G.S. Singhvi, J.: Ranjana Prakash Desai, J.: S.A. Bobde, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21 — False representation and unfair trade practice — Finding of, Ayurvedic practitioner prescribing Allopathic medicines, Entitlement to — Son of the appellant was given treatment for the problem of epilepsy by Respondnet No. 1 who was passing off Allopathic medicines as Ayurvedic medicines — National Commission by the impugned judgment held that respondent No.1 having made the false representation was guilty of unfair trade practice but held that in the light of letter dated 24th February, 2003 respondent No.1 was entitled to prescribe Allopathic medicines — Respondents relied on a letter dated 24th February, 2003 issued by Secretary, Medical Education Department, Government of U.P. to suggest that the Aurvedic/Unani Practitioners practicing Ayurvedic System are also authorised to use allopathic medicines under U.P. Indian Medical Council Act, 1939 — Held, incident and treatment as alleged by the appellant relate to the period 1994 to 1997 — Therefore, letter dated 24th February, 2003 is of no avail to the respondents as the same was not in existence during the period of treatment — From the letter it is clear that in connection with some case the High Court of Allahabad issued direction to take action against the quacks who are practicing in Allopathic Medicine but not registered with Medical Council — Respondents has not brought to notice any Act known as U.P. Indian Medical Council Act, 1939 but there is an Act known as U.P. Indian Medicine Act, 1939 — In any case respondent No.1 has nowhere pleaded that he was registered with the Medical Council or enrolled in the State Medical Register — He has not cited even the registration number and no specific plea has been taken that he has already been registered with the U.P. State Medical Council — Even the registration number has not been mentioned — Merely on the basis of a vague plea; the National Commission held that respondent No.1 was entitled to practice and prescribe modern Allopathic medicine.
(Para 13 & 14)
Bhanwar Kanwar v. R.K. Gupta [Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal No. 8660/2009 (05/04/2013), 2013(2) SCV(Civil) 253: 2013(4) SCC 252: 2013(8) JT 296: 2013(5) SCALE 373: 2013(3) Supreme 34: 2013(5) SLT 720 [G.S. Singhvi, J.: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21 — Compensation — Deduction of 50% of the compensation amount and direction to deposit with Consumer Legal Aid Account, Justifiability of — In a case of false representation and unfair trade practice, National Commission deducted 50% of the compensation amount and directed to deposit the same with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the Commission — Challenged — Held, no reason given by the National Commission for deducting 50% of the compensation amount and to deposit the same with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the Commission — Accordingly, part of the order passed by the National Commission is set aside.
(Para 15 & 16)
Bhanwar Kanwar v. R.K. Gupta [Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal No. 8660/2009 (05/04/2013), 2013(2) SCV(Civil) 253: 2013(4) SCC 252: 2013(8) JT 296: 2013(5) SCALE 373: 2013(3) Supreme 34: 2013(5) SLT 720 [G.S. Singhvi, J.: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21 — Enhancement of compensation — Finding of false representation and unfair trade practice, Physical and mental harassment, Entitlement to — Prashant, son of the appellant was given treatment for the problem of epilepsy by Respondnet No. 1 who was passing off Allopathic medicines as Ayurvedic medicines — National Commission by the impugned judgment held that respondent No.1 having made the false representation was guilty of unfair trade practice and quantified the compensation payable by the respondents as Rs. 5,00,000/- and directed respondent No.1 to pay a consolidated sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the appellant and to deposit the remaining amount in the account of the Consumer Legal Aid of the National Commission — Appeal preferred by the complainant-appellant — Held, National Commission has already held that respondent No.1 was guilty of unfair trade practice and adopted unfair method and deceptive practice by making false statement orally as well as in writing — In view of the finding, both Prashant and appellant suffered physical and mental injury due to the misleading advertisement, unfair trade practice and negligence of the respondents — Appellant and Prashant thus are entitled for an enhanced compensation for the injury suffered by them — Therefore, amount of compensation is enhanced at Rs.15 lakhs for payment in favour of the appellant — Appeal allowed.
(Para 15 & 16)
Bhanwar Kanwar v. R.K. Gupta [Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal No. 8660/2009 (05/04/2013), 2013(2) SCV(Civil) 253: 2013(4) SCC 252: 2013(8) JT 296: 2013(5) SCALE 373: 2013(3) Supreme 34: 2013(5) SLT 720 [G.S. Singhvi, J.: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21 — Compensation — Rejection of claim for, Non-consideration of report of Medical Board, Effect of — Appellant’s father took insurance cover under `Janta Gramin Vyaktigat Durghatna Policy’ in the name of the appellant — Appellant fell down and sustained injuries in the right portion of his head and suffered 100% disability in the right eye — Respondents rejected the claim on the ground that the same was not covered by the policy — State Commission and National Commission dismissed the claim for compensation by assuming that his right eye was afflicted with the disease of Phthisis Bulbi and the same was the cause of loss of vision — Complainant preferred appeal — Held, both the consumer fora did not bother to carefully go through the report of the Medical Board constituted in furtherance of the direction given by the State Commission — In that report, the concerned doctors opined that the loss of vision could have been caused by fall while playing — In their pleadings, respondents had not contested the statement contained in the complaint, which was duly supported by the affidavit of Shri P.D. Chourasia, that while playing outside the residence his child had an accidental fall and the consequential injury to the right eye led to the loss of vision — State Commission and the National Commission committed serious error in completely ignoring the report of the Medical Board which had opined that Phthisis Bulbi can be caused due to injury caused due to fall — Before the State Commission, sufficient evidence was produced by the appellant to prove that he had an accidental fall and as a result of that, right side of his head and the right eye were injured — Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the appellant’s case was covered by the policy issued by respondent No.1 and the State Commission and the National Commission committed serious error by rejecting his claim — Appeal allowed — Respondents to pay compensation to the appellant with interest.
(Para 12, 14 & 15)
Sandeep Kumar Chourasia v. Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Company Ltd. [Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal No. 2759/2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25991/2008) (02/04/2013), 2013(2) SCV(Civil) 595: 2013(4) SCC 270: 2013(5) SCALE 103: 2013(2) Supreme 639: 2013(4) SLT 724 [G.S. Singhvi, J.: H.L. Gokhale, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Insurance — Insurance policy — Risk cover of price recovery of foreign export — Failure on part of insured to inform to insurance company about non-payment by importer — Sustainability of claim — Respondent purchased a policy for the purpose of insuring a shipment to foreign buyers — Buyer committed default in making payments towards such policy with respect to the consignment — Insurer rejected claims on the ground that the insured did not ensure compliance with Clause 8 (b) of the insurance agreement, which stipulated the period within which the insurer is to be informed about any default committed by a foreign importer — State Disputes Redressal Commission directed the insurer to make various requisite payments due under different claims, with 9 per cent interest with litigation expenses — Insurer preferred appeals before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, wherein the impugned judgment and order was disputed, stating that it was evident from the said judgment that 11 claims had been rejected and that 5 claims made by the insured were accepted — Both the parties preferred appeals — Held, since insured failed to comply with the requirement of clause 8(b) of the agreement informing the insurer about the non-payment of outstanding dues by the foreign importer within the stipulated time except in two cases, thus, we are of the view that only two claims deserve to be allowed and others are dis-allowed — Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 19 & 23 — Insurance — Liability of insurer — Failure on the part of insured to comply with stipulated terms in agreement, Effect of.
(Para 13)
Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. v. Garg Sons International [Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal No. 1557/2004 (17/01/2013), 2013(1) SCV(Civil) 233: 2013(1) SCALE 410: 2013(1) SLT 614: 2014(1) SCC 686 [B.S. Chauhan, J.: V. Gopala Gowda, J.] <<LAWPACK SUPREME COURT>>
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 16(1)(a) & 20(1)(a) — National and State Consumer Redressal Commisions — Consultation in the matters of appointment — Discussed.
Ashish Handa, Advocate v. Hon`ble the Chief Justice of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others, (1996) 3 SCC 145, Ashok Tanwar and another v. State of H.P. and others, (2005) 2 SCC 104 & N. Kannadasan v. Ajoy Khose and others, (2009) 7 SCC 1, Referred.
(Para 54 & 56)
HELD: This Court in Ashish Handa, Advocate v. Hon`ble the Chief Justice of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others, (1996) 3 SCC 145, held in the matter of appointment of President of the State Commissions and the National Commissions under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court and Chief Justice of India is in the same manner, as indicated by the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association case (supra) for appointment of High Court and Supreme Court Judges. This Court noticed that the functions discharged by the Commission are primarily the adjudication of consumer disputes and, therefore, a person from the judicial branch is considered to be suitable for the office of the President. The Court noticed the requirement of consultation with the Chief Justice under the proviso to Section 16(1)(a) and Section 20(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, is similar to that in Article 217. Consequently, it was held that principle enunciated in the majority opinion in the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association case (supra) must apply even for initiating the proposal for appointment.
(Para 54)
Judgments discussed above would indicate that the consultation is held to be mandatory if the incumbent to be appointed to the post is either a sitting or a retired judge who has to discharge judicial functions and the orders rendered by them are capable of execution. Consultation, it may be noted, is never meant to be a formality, but meaningful and effective and primacy of opinion is always vested with the High Court or the Chief Justice of the State High Court or the collegium of the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of India, as the case may be, when a person has to hold a judicial office and discharge functions akin to judicial functions.
(Para 56)
Chandrashekaraiah v. Janekere C. Krishna [Bench Strength 2], Civil Appeal Nos. 197-199/2013 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 15658-15660/2012) (11/01/2013), 2013 AIR(SC) 726: 2013(3) SCC 117: 2013(2) JT 65: 2013(1) SCALE 255: 2013(1) Supreme 161: 2013(1) SLT 297 [K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.: Ma