IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE
JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.7975
OF 2001
[JT
2002 (6) SC 1 = (2002) 6 SCC 635]
Dr.
J.J. Merchant & Ors.
…
Appellants
Versus
Shrinath
Chaturvedi …
Respondent
Directions issued by the Supreme Court to the National
Commission (Refer to para 37)
Complicated questions of law and facts National
Commission competent to decide.
Also within the discretion of the national Commission to
direct the complainant to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief in
cases involving complicated issues requiring
recording of evidence of experts, which may delay the proceedings.
J U D G M E N T
Shah, J.
Miscellaneous
Petition No.53 of 2000 was filed before the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “National Commission”), New
Delhi in Original Petition No.252 of 1993 by the appellants - doctors praying
that complaint filed for alleged medical negligence be either dismissed as
according to them complicated questions of law and facts arise which can best
be decided by the Civil Court or in the alternative the proceeding be stayed
during the pendency of criminal prosecution pending against them in criminal
court at Mumbai. That application was
rejected by the Commission. Hence, this
appeal.
In the present case, complainant – respondent filed
Original Petition before the National Commission on 26.8.1993 alleging that his
son aged 21 years was admitted to the Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai on 4.8.1992
for operation of slip disc as he was suffering from backache. It was stated that before that, he had
returned from USA in the month of June, 1992 after obtaining degree in Business
Management. He died on 29th
August, 1992 in the hospital itself. For
this, he attributed medical negligence.
Before filing complaint before the National Commission,
the complainant had also filed criminal complaint before the Metropolitan
Magistrate, Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A/201 and 203
of Indian Penal Code. That prosecution
is also pending. The Commission rejected
the application by holding that there is no universal rule of law that during
the pendency of criminal proceedings, civil proceedings must invariably be
stayed. The Commission also observed
that there was unexplained delay in moving such application at this stage and,
therefore, case requires to be decided at the earliest.
In
this appeal, the Court issued notice on 7th December, 2001 and
thereafter on 28th January, 2002 passed the following order:—
“It is contended by Mr. Ashok Desai,
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. R.F. Nariman, the
learned senior counsel appearing for the intervenors that some guidelines will
have to be laid down which are more precise in nature with regard to the type
of cases which the Consumer Forum will not entertain, keeping in mind the
decision of this Court in Indian Medical Association v. V.P.
Shanta [(1995) 6 SCC 651] in paragraph 37. List after six weeks on a non-miscellaneous
day before a Bench of Three Judges. In
the meantime, there will be no stay of proceedings.”
Learned
senior counsel Mr. Nariman first submitted that considering - (a) the inordinate delay in disposal
of the complaint, (b) complicated question of law and facts involved in this
case depending upon medical experts opinion summary procedure is not proper
remedy for deciding such issues, hence complainant should be directed to
approach the Civil Court.
Reasons for delay as submitted by
the Learned Counsel for the parties:—
a)
Delay in making appointment of the Chairman and Members of the
Forum or Commission including National Commission;
b)
Not providing adequate infrastructure;
c)
Delay because of heavy workload and there is only one Bench
of the National Commission or the State Commissions for deciding complaints;
d)
Delay in procedure;
Before
dealing with reasons for delay, the first question which requires consideration
is — whether delay in disposal
of cases by the Consumer Forum or Commission would be a ground for directing
the complainant to approach Civil Court?
In the present case, there is inordinate delay of about nine
years in disposal of complaint. However,
if this contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is
accepted, apart from the fact that it would be unjust, the whole purpose and
object of enacting the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘Act’) would be frustrated. One
of the main objects of the Act is to provide speedy and simple redressal to
consumer disputes and for that a quasi-judicial machinery is sought to be set
up at the district, State and Central level.
These quasi-judicial bodies are required to observe the principles of
natural justice and have been empowered to give relief of a specific nature and
to award, wherever appropriate, compensation to consumers. Penalties for
non-compliance of the orders given by the quasi-judicial bodies have also been
provided. The object and purpose of enacting the Act is to render simple,
inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers with complaints against defective
goods and deficient services and the benevolent piece of legislation intended
to protect a large body of consumers from exploitation would be defeated. Prior to the Act, consumers were required to
approach the Civil Court for securing justice for the wrong done to them and it
is known fact that decision in suit takes years. Under the Act, consumers are
provided with an alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy. As such, the Consumer forum is an alternative
forum established under the Act to discharge the functions of a Civil
Court. Therefore, delay in disposal of
the complaint would not be a ground for rejecting the complaint and directing
the complainant to approach the Civil Court.
Further,
while rejecting the similar contention where the complainant was directed to
approach State Commission or District Forum, this Court in Charan Singh v. Healing
Touch Hospital and Others [(2000) 7 SCC 668] observed that appellant
ought not to have been condemned unheard after waiting for six long years; the
legislative intent, for enacting the legislation, of a speedy summary trial, to
settle the claim of the complainant (consumers) has been respected in
breach. The spirit of the benevolent
legislation has been overlooked and its object frustrated by non-suiting the
appellant in the manner in which it has been done by the National Consumer
Forum. It was further observed that “the
Consumer Forums must take expeditious steps to deal with the complaints filed
before them and not keep them pending for years. It would defeat the object of the Act, if
summary trials are not disposed of expeditiously by the forums at the District,
State or National levels. Steps in this
direction are required to be taken in the right earnest”.
Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that the
present case involves complicated question of facts for which experts including
doctors would be required to be examined and their cross-examination may be
necessary, therefore also, the National Commission ought to have directed the
complainant to approach the Civil Court.
For this purpose, the reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court
in Indian Medical Association v.
V.P. Shantha and others [(1995) 6 SCC 651 para 37] and it is submitted that in the present
case complicated question of fact involving negligence of doctors is to be
decided and, therefore, complainant should be directed to approach the Civil
Court. In the aforesaid case, the Court
rejected the said contention and observed thus:—
“…..It has been urged that proceedings
involving negligence in the matter of rendering services by a medical
practitioner would raise complicated questions requiring evidence of experts to
be recorded and that the procedure which is followed for determination of
consumer disputes under the Act is summary in nature involving trial on the
basis of affidavits and is not suitable for determination of complicated
questions. It is no doubt true that
sometimes complicated questions requiring recording of evidence of experts may
arise in a complaint about deficiency in service based on the ground of
negligence in rendering medical services by a medical practitioner; but
this would not be so in all complaints about deficiency in rendering services
by a medical practitioner. There may be
cases which do not raise such complicated questions and the deficiency in
service may be due to obvious faults which can be easily established such as
removal of the wrong limb or the performance of an operation on the wrong
patient or giving injection of a drug to which the patient is allergic without
looking into the out-patient card containing the warning {as in Chin Keow v.
Govt. of Malaysia [(1967) 1 WLR 813 (PC)]} or use of wrong gas during the
course of an anaesthetic or leaving inside the patient swabs or other items of
operating equipment after surgery. One
often reads about such incidents in the newspapers. The issues arising in the complaints in such
cases can be speedily disposed of by the procedure that is being followed by the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies and there is no reason why complaints
regarding deficiency in service in such cases should not be adjudicated by the
Agencies under the Act. In
complaints involving complicated issues requiring recording of evidence of
experts, the complainant can be asked to approach the civil court for
appropriate relief. Section 3 of the Act
which prescribes that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not
in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force,
preserves the right of the consumer to approach the civil court for necessary
relief. We are, therefore, unable to
hold that on the ground of composition of the Consumer Disputes Redressal
Agencies or on the ground of the procedure which is followed by the said
Agencies for determining the issues arising before them, the service rendered
by the medical practitioners are not intended to be included in the expression
‘service’ as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act…..”
In the aforesaid case, the Court was dealing with a
contention that services rendered by the medical practitioners are not intended
to be included in the expression "service" as defined in Section
2(1)(o) of the Act. That contention was
negatived by the Court. Further from
this decision, it is apparent that it is within the discretion of the
Commission to ask the complainant to approach the civil court for appropriate
relief in case complaint involves complicated issues requiring recording of
evidence of experts, which may delay the proceeding. But the court has specifically held that
issues arising in the complaints in such cases can be speedily disposed of by
the procedure that is being followed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal
Agencies.
Further, under the Act the National Commission is required
to be headed by a retired Judge of this Court and the State Commission is
required to be headed by a retired High Court Judge. They are competent to decide complicated
issues of law or facts. Hence, it would
not be proper to hold that in cases where negligence of experts is alleged,
consumers should be directed to approach the Civil Court.
It was next contended that such complicated questions of
facts cannot be decided in summary proceedings.
In our view, this submission also requires to be rejected because under
the Act, for summary or speedy trial,
exhaustive procedure in conformity with the principles of natural justice is
provided. Therefore, merely because it
is mentioned that Commission or Forum is required to have summary trial would
hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to approach the Civil Court. For trial to be just and reasonable long
drawn delayed procedure, giving ample opportunity to the litigant to harass the
aggrieved other side, is not necessary.
It should be kept in mind that legislature has provided alternative,
efficacious, simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers and that
should not be curtailed on such ground.
It would also be totally wrong assumption that because summary trial is
provided, justice cannot be done when some questions of facts are required to
be dealt with or decided. The Act
provides sufficient safeguards. For this purpose, we would refer to the
procedure prescribed under the Act for disposal of the complaint.
“13. Procedure on
receipt of complaint—(1)
The District Forum shall, on receipt of a complaint, if it relates to any
goods,—
(a)
refer a
copy of the complaint to the opposite party mentioned in the complaint
directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days
or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the
District Forum;
(b)
where the
opposite party on receipt of a complaint
referred to him under clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations
contained in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent
his case within the time given by the District Forum, the District Forum shall
proceed to settle the consumer dispute in the manner specified in clauses (c)
to (g);
(c)
to (g) ….
(2) the District Forum shall, if the
complaint received by it under section 12 relates to goods in respect of which
the procedure specified in sub-section (1) cannot be followed, or if the
complaint relates to any services,—
(a)
refer a
copy of such complaint to the opposite party directing him to give his version
of the case within a period of thirty days or such extended period not
exceeding fifteen days as may be granted by the District Forum;
(b)
where the
opposite party, on receipt of a copy of the complaint, referred to him under
clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or
omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given
by the District forum, the District Forum shall proceed to settle the consumer
dispute,—
(i)
on the basis of evidence brought to
its notice by the complainant and the opposite party, where the opposite party
denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint, or
(ii)
on the basis of evidence brought to
its notice by the complainant where the opposite party omits or fails to take
any action to represent his case within the time given by the Forum.
(3) No proceedings complying with the
procedure laid down in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be called in question in
any court on the ground that principles of natural justice have not been
complied with.
(4) For
the purposes of this section, the District Forum shall have the same powers as
are vested in a civil court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while trying a
suit in respect of the following matters, namely:—
(i)
the
summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness
on oath;
(ii)
the discovery
and production of any document or other material object producible as
evidence;
(iii)
the
reception of evidence on affidavits;
(iv)
the
requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test from the
appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source;
(v)
issuing of
any commission for the examination of any witness; and
(vi)
any other matter
which may be prescribed.”
The
National Commission or the State Commission is empowered to follow the said
procedure. From the aforesaid Section it
is apparent that on receipt of the complaint, the opposite party is required to
be given notice directing him to give his version of the case within a period
of 30-days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by
the District Forum or the Commission.
For having speedy trial, this legislative mandate of not giving more than 45 days in submitting the written
statement or the version of the case is required to be adhered. If this is not adhered, the legislative
mandate of disposing of the cases within three or five months would be
defeated.
For this
purpose, even the Parliament has amended Order VIII Rule 1 of Code of Civil
Procedure, which reads thus:—
“Rule-1: Written statement.—The defendant shall, within thirty days from the
date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence :
Provided
that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said
period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day,
as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but
which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons.”
Under this
Rule also, there is a legislative mandate that written statement of defence is
to be filed within 30 days. However, if
there is a failure to file such written statement within stipulated time, the
court can at the most extend further period of 60 days and no more. Under the
Act, the legislative intent is not to give 90 days of time but only maximum 45
days for filing the version by the opposite party. Therefore, the aforesaid mandate is required
to be strictly adhered to.
Further, under Section 13(4) of the Act, the Commission or
the Forum is empowered to exercise the powers vested in Civil Court for
discovery and production of any document, the reception of evidence on affidavit
and of issuing of any commission qua examination of any witness.
In view of the aforesaid provisions, the Commission can
certainly refer to Order VII Rule 14 which provides that where a plaintiff sues
upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support
of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in
the Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time
deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. It appears that this mandatory requirement is
not followed and thereafter, there is complaint of delay in disposal. Similarly, in case of written statement under
Order VIII Rule I-A, defendant is required to produce the documents relied upon
by him when written submission is presented. The Commission can always insist
on production of all documents relied upon by the parties along with the
complaint and the defence version.
Further, in the present case, the
complainant’s case is based upon the negligence of the Doctors in giving
treatment to the deceased. Whether there
was negligence or not on the part of the concerned Doctors would depend upon
facts alleged to and in such a case there is no question of complicated
question of law involved. However, it has been pointed out by the
learned senior counsel that
recording of evidence of experts including
doctors relied upon by
the complainant would
consume much time and therefore
also complainant should approach the Civil Court. As against this, learned counsel for the
complainant submitted that under the Act, Commission is required to follow
summary procedure. It may or may not
examine the doctors or experts. It may
only rely upon the statements given by such doctors or experts.
It is true
that it is the discretion of the Commission to examine the experts if required
in appropriate matter. It is equally
true that in cases where it is deemed fit to examine experts, recording of
evidence before a Commission may consume time.
The Act specifically empowers the Consumer Forums to follow the
procedure which may not require more time or delay the proceedings. Only caution required is to follow the said
procedure strictly. Under the Act, while
trying a complaint, evidence could be taken on affidavits [under Section
13(4)(iii)]. It also empowers such
Forums to issue any Commission for examination of any witness [under Section
13(4)(v)]. It is also to be stated that
Rule 4 in Order XVIII of C.P.C. is substituted which inter alia provides that in every case, the examination-in-chief of
a witness shall be on affidavit and copies thereof shall be supplied to the
opposite party by the party who calls him for evidence. It also provides that witnesses could be
examined by the Court or the Commissioner appointed by it. As stated above, the
Commission is also empowered to follow the said procedure. Hence, we do not think that there is any
scope of delay in examination or cross-examination of the witnesses. The affidavits of the experts including the
doctors can be taken as evidence.
Thereafter, if cross-examination is sought for by the other side and the
Commission finds it proper, it can easily evolve a procedure permitting the
party who intends to cross-examine by putting certain questions in writing and
those questions also could be replied by such experts including doctors on
affidavits. In case where stakes are
very high and still party intends to cross-examine such doctors or experts,
there can be video conferences or asking questions by arranging telephone
conference and at the initial stage this cost should be borne by the person who
claims such video conference. Further, cross-examination
can be taken by the Commissioner appointed by it at the working place of such
experts at a fixed time.
In any
case, for avoiding the delay the District Forum or Commissions can evolve a
procedure of levying heavy cost where adjournment is sought by a party on one
or the other ground. This would have its
own impact on disposing the complaints, appeals or revisions within the
stipulated or reasonable time. For avoiding delay in disposal of cases, the
procedure and the time limit prescribed under the Act and the Rules is required
to be strictly adhered and followed. If
there is proper mind set to do so on the part of all concerned, delay in
disposal to a large extent could be avoided.
Learned
senior counsel Mr. Nariman and Mr. Chatterjee and Mr. Lalit (Amicus Curiae)
submitted that despite various directions given by this Court including the
decision given in Charan Singh’s case (Supra), the District Forums, State
Commissions and National Commission remain flooded with number of complaints,
appeals and revisions and arrears is mounting.
For delay, they unanimously submitted that after enactment of the Act,
appropriate steps are not taken by the Government for ensuring that the
National Commission as well as State Forums can function properly. It is submitted that even if one Member is appointed, other
members of the Forum are not appointed. It is also pointed out that on
occasions there is no simultaneous appointment of the Members of the Forum or
the President so as to make it functional.
In most of the cases, it is their submission that even after appointment
of the members, the forum is not provided with necessary building and
infrastructure.
It
is also pointed out that before the National Commission, as on 1st
April 2002, 7582 matters were pending, which consisted of 1495 original
petitions, 2330 first appeals and 3757 revision petitions. It is true that for disposal of these many
matters in a stipulated time limit as prescribed under the Act or the Rules,
one Bench may not be in a position to cope up with the work.
For
reducing the arrears and for seeing that complaints, appeals and revisions are
decided speedily and within stipulated time, we hope that President of National
Commission would draw the attention of the Government for taking appropriate
actions within stipulated time and see that object and purpose of the Act is
not frustrated.
Further,
National Commission has administrative control over the State Commissions and
District Forums as provided under Section 24-B, which reads thus:—
“24B.
Administrative
Control.—(1) The National Commission
shall have administrative control over all the State Commissions in the
following matters, namely—
(i)
calling
for periodical return regarding the institution, disposal pendency of cases;
(ii)
issuance
of instructions regarding adoption of uniform procedure in the hearing of matters,
prior service of copies of documents produced by one party to the opposite
parties, furnishing of English translation of judgments written in any
language, speedy grant of copies of documents;
(iii) generally overseeing the functioning of the State Commissions
or the District Fora to ensure that the objects and purposes of the Act are
best served without in any way interfering with their quasi-judicial freedom.
(2)
The State
Commission shall have administrative control over all the District Fora within
its jurisdiction in all matters referred to in sub-section (1).”
It can be hoped that the
National Commission would ensure its best to see that District Forums, State
Commissions and National Commission can discharge its functions as efficiently
and speedily as contemplated by the provisions of the Act. The National Commission has administrative
control over all the State Commissions inter
alia for issuing of instructions regarding adoption of uniform procedure in
hearing of the matters etc. It would
have also administrative control in overseeing that the functions of the State
Commissions or District Forums are discharged in furtherance of objects and
purposes of the Act in the best manner.
It
is to be stated that the grievances of the learned counsel for the parties is
sought to be taken care by the proposed amendment in the Legislation. For this, we would refer to the Consumer
Protection (Amendment) Bill, 2002, which was introduced in Rajya Sabha and was
passed on 11th March, 2002. The
statement of objects and reasons of the said Bill reads thus:—
“The enactment of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 was an important milestone in the history of the consumer
movement in the country. The Act was
made to provide for the better protection and promotion of consumer rights
through the establishment of Consumer Councils and quasi-judicial machinery. Under the Act, consumer disputes redressal
agencies have been set up throughout the country with the District Forum at the
district level, State Commission at the State level and National Commission at
the National level to provide simple, inexpensive and speedy justice to the
consumers with complaints against defective goods, deficient services and
unfair and restrictive trade practices.
The Act was also amended in the years 1991 and 1993 to make it more
effective and purposeful.
2. Although the consumer disputes
redressal agencies have to a considerable extent, served the purpose for which
they were created, the disposal of cases has not been fast enough. Several bottlenecks and shortcomings have
also come to light in the implementation of various provisions of the Act. With a view to achieving quicker disposal of
consumer complaints by the consumer disputes redressal agencies securing
effective implementation of their orders, widening the scope of some of the
provisions of the Act to make it more effective, removing various lacunae in
the Act and streamlining the procedures, amendments are proposed in the Act,
which inter alia, include the
following, namely:—
(i)
exclusion
of the jurisdiction of the consumer disputes redressal Agencies in respect of
claims for which corresponding provisions in the special laws exist for the
protection of interests of consumers;
(ii)
provisions
for creation of Benches of the National Commission and State Commissions as
well as holding of circuit benches of these Commissions;
(iii)
prescribing
the period within which complaints are to be admitted, notices are to be issued
to opposite party and the complaints are to be decided. Similar provisions have been proposed also in
respect of appeals;
(iv)
no adjournment
to be ordinarily allowed and allowed where, a speaking order giving reasons
would be made.
(v)
……. (xvii)
………………”
Further proposed amendments inter alia provides that after sub-section (1) of Section 20,
sub-section (1A)(i) and (ii) shall be inserted, which reads thus:—
“(1A)(i) The
jurisdiction, powers and authority of the National Commission may be
exercised by Benches thereof.
(ii) A
Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more members as the
President may deem fit.”
Similar
provision is introduced for the State Commission by inserting sub-section
(1B)(i) and (ii) after sub-section (1) of Section 16, which reads thus:—
“(1B)(i) The jurisdiction, powers and
authority of the State Commission may be exercised by Benches thereof.
(ii) A Bench may be constituted by the
President with one or more members as the President may deem fit.”
Therefore,
the President of the National Commission or the State Commission would have
power to form the Benches for disposal of the pending cases. It would certainly depend upon the workload
and the time frame contemplated under the Act for disposal of such cases.
Proposed
Bill also envisages insertion of Sub-section 3A in Section 13 of the Act, which
reads as under:
“(3A) Every complaint shall be heard as
expeditiously as possible and endeavour
shall be made to decide the complaint within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of notice by opposite party where the complaint does not
require analysis or testing of commodities and within five months if it
requires analysis or testing of commodities:
Provided
that no
adjournment shall be ordinarily granted by the District Forum unless
sufficient cause is shown and the reasons for grant of adjournment have been
recorded in writing by the Forum:
Provided
further that the District Forum shall make such orders as to the costs occasioned by
the adjournment as may be provided in the regulations made under this
Act.”
From the wording of the aforesaid Section, it is apparent
that there is legislative mandate to the District Forum or the Commissions to
dispose of the complaints as far as possible within prescribed time of three months by adhering strictly to the
procedure prescribed under the Act. The
opposite party has to submit its version within 30 days from the date of the
receipt of the complaint by him and Commission can give at the most further 15
days for some unavoidable reasons to file its version.
Learned
counsel for the parties submitted that in the present case, there is a delay of
more than nine years in disposal of the complaint. For that purpose, they made a grievance that
matters are repeatedly adjourned on one or other ground without following the
procedure prescribed under Section 13 of the Act and Rule 14 of the Consumer
Protection Rules. The proposed amendment
also requires that no adjournment shall ordinarily be granted and in any case
if adjournment is required to be granted, reasons for the same are required to
be recorded. Further, to discourage
granting of repeated adjournments, if National Commission frames necessary
regulations heavy cost could be awarded.
There is also proposal to add Section 12(3), which reads thus—
“12(3) On receipt of a complaint made under
sub-section (1), the District Forum may, by order, allow the complaint to be
proceeded with or rejected:
Provided
that a complaint shall not be rejected under this sub-section unless an opportunity
of being heard has been given to the complainant:
Provided
further that the admissibility of the complaint shall ordinarily be decided
within twenty-one days from the date on which the complaint was received.”
It is apparent that the aforesaid
proposed amendment in the Act mandates the District Forum or the Commission to
decide the admissibility of the complaint within 21 days from the date on which
the complaint was received by it. This
procedure is required to be adhered so that after lapse of some time, objection
with regard to maintainability of the complaint is not required to be decided.
Other
proposed amendments, such as, Sections 22C and 22D, which deal with Circuit
Benches and filling up of vacancies in the office of President of District
Forum, State Commission or of the National Commission, as the case may be, is
not required to be referred to. However,
we would mention that Section 30A, which is proposed to be inserted, empowers
the Commission to frame regulations with the approval of the Central Government
and sub-section (2) empowers the Commission to frame regulations for making
provisions for the cost of adjournment of any proceeding before the District
Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission.
From
the proposed amendment in the Act, it is apparent that Parliament is alive to
the problems faced by the consumers and the consumer forums and, therefore,
further directions are not required to be given.
However,
apart from the contemplated legislative action, it is expected that the
Government would also take appropriate steps in providing proper infrastructure
so that the Act is properly implemented and the legislative purpose of
providing alternative, efficacious, speedy, inexpensive remedy to the consumers
is not defeated or frustrated.
Similar
action is also expected from the National Commission as well as State
Commissions. Hence, for avoiding delay in disposal of complaints within prescribed period,
National Commission is required to take appropriate steps including:—
(a)
By exercise of Administrative control, it can be seen that
competent persons are appointed as Members on all levels so that there may not
be any delay in composition of the Forum or the Commission for want of Members;
(b)
It would oversee that time limit prescribed for filing
defence version and disposal of complaints is strictly adhered to;
(c)
It would see that complaint as well as defence version
should be accompanied by documents and affidavits upon which parties intend to
rely;
(d)
In cases where cross-examination of the persons who have
filed affidavits is necessary, suggested questions of cross-examination be
given to the persons who have tendered their affidavits and reply may be also
on affidavits;
(e)
In cases where Commission deems it fit to cross-examine the
witnesses in person, video conference or telephonic conference at the cost of
person who so applies could be arranged or cross-examination could be through a
Commission. This procedure would be
helpful in cross-examination of experts, such as, Doctors.
In
the result, with the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. IA Nos.1 to 4 do not require any further
consideration and stand disposed of accordingly.
Before
parting with the judgment, we would appreciate the assistance rendered by the
learned counsel for the parties and Amicus Curiae.
.………………………..……..J.
(M.B.
Shah)
……..…………………………J.
(Bisheshwar
Prasad Singh)
.………………………..……..J.
(H.K.
SEMA)
New Delhi;
August
12 2002.
No comments:
Post a Comment