National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Kamal Kant Sharma vs Bptp Limited on 28 February, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI TRANSFER APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2018 1. KAMAL KANT SHARMA FLAT NO. 803, TOWER OSAKA, OMAXE HEIGHTS SECTOR 86, FARIDABAD HARYANA ...........Appellants(s) Versus 1. BPTP LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M-11, MIDDLE CIRCLE, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110001 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr.Kamal Mehta, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 28 Feb 2018 ORDER
By these Applications, purportedly filed under Section 22B read with Section 24B of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), the Complainants pray for transfer of the Consumer Complaints No.675 and 676 of 2013, stated to be pending before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vikas Bhawan, ITO, New Delhi (for short "the District Forum") to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short "the State Commission") and stay of the proceedings before the District Forum in the said Complaints.
In the Applications, it is stated that the pleadings and the exercise to file the evidence by way of affidavits were completed as far back as in December 2014 and the case is pending for final arguments since 23.3.2015 and hence the entire object of the Act for expeditious disposal of the Complaints has been defeated.
We have heard learned Counsel for the Applicants for some time. In support of his submission that the administrative control over the Consumer Fora below being vested in this Commission in terms of Section 24B, in particular under sub-section (iii) of Section (1) of the said provision, it is obligatory upon this Commission to ensure that the object and purpose of the Act is best served, by directing the lower Fora to dispose of the Complaints at the earliest, learned Counsel has pressed into service the following observations by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bijoy Sinha Roy (D) by LR. Vs. Biswanath Das & Ors. - 2017 (11) SCALE 391 :
16. Before parting with this order, it is necessary to refer to another important aspect relating to administration of justice by the Consumer Fora. A person coming to a consumer Court with a grievance of deficiency in service needs immediate relief. The very object of setting up Consumer Fora was to provide speedy remedy to a consumer. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) was brought about in the background of world wide movement for consumer protection. Framework of the Act is based on Resolution dated 9th April, 1985 of the General Assembly of the UN to which India was a signatory, V. Krishna Rao (supra) Para 43. The Act provided for protection of interests of consumers in the form of quick and speedy redressal of grievances. The provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law. Thus, the Act provides for additional remedies. The authorities under the Act exercise quasi-judicial powers. The award of damages is aimed at bringing about qualitative change in the attitude of service provider, Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Assn. of India (2011) 14 SCC 337, PARA 18-21
................................
18. To achieve the object of providing speedy remedy to a consumer steps can be taken under Section 24B of the Act. The National Commission has administrative control over all the State Commissions. Thus, the National Commission is competent to introduce monitoring mechanism for speedy disposal. It is well known that matters are pending at different levels for sufficiently long period which defeats the very object and purpose of the Act. We request the National Commission to consider this aspect and formulate an appropriate action plan. In this regard, we may refer to a recent decision in Hussain v. State of U.P., (2017) 5 SCC 702, para 22 by which directions for action plans have been issued. The National Commission may also consider use of video conferencing facility for examining expert witnesses wherever necessary. See observations in Krishna Veni (2017) 4 SCC 150, para 14.
Having carefully gone through the afore-extracted observations, though we are in agreement with the learned Counsel for the Applicants that in the present cases, there seems to be no plausible reason for the District Forum not to take up the Complaints for final hearing even after a lapse of almost four years in completion of the pleadings etc. but we are not persuaded to agree with the learned Counsel that the power to transfer the Complaint from the District Forum to the State Commission on account of some lapse on the part of the District Forum, can be traced to either Section 22B or 24B of the Act.
Under the circumstances, while expressing our anguish over the inordinate delay on the part of the District Forum in not taking up the Complaints for final hearing for such a long time after the same were ripe for final hearing, we decline to transfer the Complaints from the District Forum to the State Commission, as prayed for in the Applications. Nevertheless, we direct the President of the concerned District Forum to ensure that final decisions in the Complaints are taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Before parting, we request the President of the State Commission to obtain a report from the District Forum as to why the final hearing in the Complaints were being deferred and forward the same to this Commission within 4 weeks from today.
The Transfer Applications stand disposed of in the above terms.
Order Dasti.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER