State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Consumer Disputes Redressal ... vs Shri Atul Chandrakant Tawade & Ors. on 29 November, 2010
Daily Order
BEFORE THE HON'BLE
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Revision
Petition No. RP/10/46
(Arisen out of
order dated 05/01/2010 of
Case No. 480/2009 of District Mumbai(Suburban))
1. STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI C S T STATION MUMBAI
Maharashtra
....Appellant
Versus
1.
SHRI ATUL CHANDRAKANT TAWADE GOREGAON (E) MUMBAI 400063 Maharashtra
2. Shri Kamelesh Madgaonkar, Secretary Goregaon Sindhur CHS Ltd. Flat No.2/F, Plot No.3, Subhashnagar, 4th Pandurangwadi,
Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400 063.
3.
Chairman, Shri Sunil Zanyye
Flat No.2/D, Goregaon Sindhur
CHS Ltd., Goregaon (E), Mumbai.
4.
Treasurer, Sau.Vandana Patkar
Flat No.3/C, Goregaon Sindhur
CHS Ltd., Goregaon (E), Mumbai.
5. Goregaon Sindhur CHS Ltd. Subhashnagar, Goregaon (E),
Mumbai-400 063.
6. The
Consumer Courts Advocates Association (Maharashtra & Goa)
through its President Shri J.M. Baphna C/o. State Consumer Commission,
Room No.7/8, Old Administrative Staff College Building, Hajarimal
Somani Marg, Mumbai-400 001.
....Respondent
BEFORE :
Hon'ble Mr.Justice
S.B.Mhase , PRESIDENT
Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar , Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale , Member PRESENT:
None for the Petitioner Mr.S. Datar, Advocate for the Respondent 1 Mr.S.B. Prabhawalkar, Advocate, Proxy for Mr.U.B. Wavikar, Advocate for the Respondent 2 to5 Mr.Paranjape, Advocate for the Respondent 6/Intervener *JUDGEMENT/ORDER Per Mr.Justice S.B. Mhase, Hon'ble President Heard respective Advocates for the parties.
This is a Suo-motu Revision Petition taken up by the State Consumer Commission in view of powers vested in the State Commission under section 17(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity).
This Revision Petition is entertained suo-motu by the State Commission under the following facts :-
Respondent No.1 is the org. complainant while respondent Nos.2to5 are org. opponents. Intervener in this Revision Petition is the Consumer Courts Advocates Association.
Consumer complaint No.480/2009 has been filed by respondent No.1 before the District Consumer Forum, Mumbai Suburban as against respondent Nos.2to5. We need not go into the grievance made by the respondent No.1 in the said complaint in the present Revision Petition. Suffice it to say that respondent No.1 has filed said complaint in Marathi language as envisaged in Rule 6(1) of the Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 2000 which were brought into force with effect from 16/02/2000. Said rule states that the language of the District Consumer Forum shall be Marathi and it explained that that for the purposes of this sub-rule language includes language of hearing and orders. Rest of the rule is in respect other compliances and the procedure to be followed in the District Consumer Forum.
Said complaint filed by respondent No.1 was admitted and after admission notices were issued to respondent Nos.2to5.
Respondent Nos.2to5, thereafter have filed their written version on 20/10/2009. However, written version is/was drafted and filed in English. Therefore, respondent No.1 filed an application making grievance that language of the District Consumer Forum is Marathi and that the complainant/respondent No.1 has filed his complaint in Marathi and therefore, respondent Nos.2to5 should have filed written version in Marathi.
Respondent No.1 submitted that he desirous to file a reply to the said written version and therefore, requested that translation of the said written version in Marathi language be supplied to him. Respondent Nos.2to5 have opposed the said application raising contention that respondent No.1 is an employee of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre and the official language of the said institution is English and therefore, respondent No.1 is well conversant with English and it is, therefore, contended that demand of Marathi translation by respondent No.1 is unjust and futile and thus, respondent Nos.2to5 refused to give Marathi translation.
Arguments on this application were heard by the District Consumer Forum and the District Consumer Forum by order dated 05/01/2010 rejected the application filed by respondent No.1.
Since said application was rejected, respondent No.1 submitted a complaint addressed to the President of the State Commission, Maharashtra making a grievance that the order which has been passed by the District Consumer Forum is contrary to the provisions of law and therefore, appropriate directions be issued. Said application was considered by the Administrative Committee of the State Commission in its meeting dated 26/03/2010 and it was decided that said grievance/application be considered as a Suo-Motu Revision Petition under section 17(1)(b) of the Act. Registrar was directed to register the Suo-Motu Revision Petition and notices were issued to the parties. Notices were served to all the respondents and all the respondents have submitted their submissions before the State Commission. It appears that since issue in respect of language to be used in the District Consumer Forum was under consideration, Consumer Courts Advocates Association (CCAA) also filed an intervention application requesting the State Commission to hear them. We have allowed them to intervene and they too have also submitted their submissions in this respect.
In view of powers which are vested in the State Government under the various provisions of the Act and all other powers enabling the State Government to frame the rules in this respect, the State of Maharashtra has framed the rules known as "Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 2000" and they are brought into force with effect from 16/02/2000. Rule No.6 deals with the procedure of the District Consumer Forum and sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 is as follows :-
"Rule 6 (1) Language of the District Forum shall be Marathi Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-rule language includes language of hearings and orders."
At the beginning, it requires to be recorded that the Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.2to5 though have opposed the Revision Petition and have also opposed application of respondent No.1 before the District Consumer Forum, has categorically submitted in writing and orally that respondent Nos.2to5 are ready and willing to comply the demand of the complainant and accordingly prepared the written version in Marathi and have submitted it before us. Respondent Nos.2to5 further submitted that since demand made by respondent No.1/org. complainant is satisfied, District Consumer Forum, Mumbai Suburban may be directed to dispose of the complaint on merits. This would shows that so far as grievance of the respondent No.1 that he shall get the written version in Marathi as per Rule 6(1) is satisfied and the respondent Nos.2to5 have conceded or acceded to such request/prayer of respondent No.1/complainant. However, since issue in respect of language to be used in the District Consumer Forum is of greater general importance and since, we find that the reasons for rejection of application of respondent No.1 are improper, we heard the matter to set at not the controversy finally.
It is interesting to note that the District Consumer Forum has stated that the Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 2000 are in force with effect from 16/02/2000 which provides that language of the District Consumer Forum shall be Marathi. The District Consumer Forum has also recorded the fact that the Maharashtra State Government has issued an Ordinance/Notification in 1998 by which the language of the Subordinate Courts in the State is declared to be 'Marathi' and that the High Court of Bombay has also issued an order thereby directing to follow the directions given by the State Government with further direction that at least 50% judicial work in the Courts shall be carried out in Marathi. Therefore, District Consumer Forum was aware of the facts that the Marathi has been introduced by the Government of Maharashtra as an official language of the State. It is further clear to the District Consumer Forum that the Rules framed under the Act by the State Government specifically provided that language of the District Consumer Forum shall be Marathi. However, the application of the respondent No.1/complainant was rejected by District Consumer Forum on a ground that complainant/respondent No.1 accepted that he is an educated and a diploma holder. District Consumer Forum has found that respondent No.1 has stated in his complaint few sentences in English and while making a prayer instead of using word "Dad (֤)", the complainant used the word "Relief" and therefore, District Consumer Forum concluded that respondent No.1/complainant understands the English language in a better way and is able to read and write in English language and therefore, there is no necessity to supply him the translation and it is not a proper grievance on his part that he is not able to understand English written version filed by respondent Nos.2to5. What we find that this reasoning is not a proper reasoning. Firstly, because language of the District Consumer Forum as per the Rules framed by the State Government is Marathi which is an official language declared by the State Government under the Maharashtra Official Languages Act, 1964, then the District Consumer Forum is under obligation to follow the law as laid down and in force in the State of Maharashtra. Secondly, whether the party to the litigation is in a position to understand English or not, cannot be a criteria for rejection of the application to supply translation. If the reasoning as adopted by the District Consumer Forum is to be taken into consideration, then in each case, it will have to be analysed as to whether the party demanding Marathi translation of complaint or Marathi written version is able to understand the language in which the reply version is filed or complaint is filed and if it is found that the party knows that language in which complaint or written version is filed, then the application for translation will have to be rejected.
Such anomalous circumstances cannot be created. This will require in each and every case before District Consumer Forum an investigation in respect of language of the parties which party understands and therefore, it leads to an uncertainty in respect of language to be used in the District Consumer Forum. Therefore, the District Consumer Forum should have directed respondent Nos.2to5 to give a translation of a reply version which is filed in English. It is further to be noted that prior to filing of complaint, there was correspondence in between respondent No.1/complainant and respondent Nos.2to5. In the said correspondence, respondent Nos.2to5 have used Marathi language. Therefore, it can be noticed that respondent Nos.2to5 also knows the Marathi language and then applying the same test, which is applied to the complainant, namely, understanding of the language, District Consumer Forum should have directed the respondent Nos.2to5 to file a reply version in Marathi which would have been more in consonance with Rule 6(1) of Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 2000. Therefore, whole approach taken by the District Consumer Forum in respect of rejection of the application of respondent No.1 is an improper exercise of powers and therefore, we have proceeded to decide the grievance in the larger interest.
It requires to be noted that throughout the Maharashtra, District Consumer Forums are writing judgements in Marathi except one or two District Consumer Forum, e.g. District Consumer Forum, Pune. It further requires to be noted that in all the District Consumer Forums in the State of Maharashtra, more than 95% complaints and written versions are being filed in Marathi. Grievance in respect of filing in Marathi is only made in the 3-4 District Consumer Forums in Mumbai and one District Consumer Forum in Nagpur. Therefore, some of the litigants are making hue and cry as against the Marathi being used in the District Consumer Forums. As per our information, in these District Consumer Forums (i.e. 3-4 in Mumbai & Nagpur) also, most of the complaints and written versions are filed in Marathi. Not only that but these District Consumer Forums are also passing final orders in Marathi. So, there is a very meager community which has a grievance in respect of Marathi being followed in the District Consumer Forums. However, we need not be influenced by this statistical information. The facts is that that in all the District Consumer Forums in the State of Maharashtra are conducting their proceedings in Marathi including orders/judgements and the hearing of the cases/consumer complaints. Let it be as it is. But, we are not influenced by that also.
The main grievance of the complainant-respondent No.1, who is aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Forum is that that according to him, Article 345 of the Constitution and the Maharashtra Official Languages Act, 1964 and the Notifications which have been issued by the State Government under Section 272 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code and Section 137 of Code of Civil Procedure, which are applicable to the District and Subordinate Courts in the State of Maharashtra, the language of Subordinate Courts in the State of Maharashtra shall be Marathi.
Complainant/respondent No.1 has also relied upon the circular issued by the High Court of Bombay on 12/12/2005 in respect of use of Marathi language and also has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the matter of Usha Mehta & Ors.
V/s. State of Maharashtra& Ors., reported in 2005 (1) MLJ page-1 and thus, it is submitted on behalf of respondent No.1/complainant that language of the District Consumer Forum shall be Marathi as provided in Rule 6(1) Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 2000 and therefore, complaint and written version before the District Consumer Forum shall be filed in Marathi. It is further submitted that the explanation to said rule shows that rule is not exhaustive and therefore, all proceedings, orders and judgements of District Consumer Forum shall be in Marathi.
As stated earlier that respondent Nos.2to5 have placed on record translation of the written version and also given a copy of the same to respondent No.1/complainant, still respondent Nos.2to5 have raised certain objections. According to them, though the Rule 6(1) provides for Marathi language to be used in District Consumer Forum but, rest of the sub-rule (2) does not make a reference to filing of written complaint in Marathi. It has been further stated that the National Commission while making Regulations have not stated anywhere that what should be the language of the District Consumer Forum or the Consumer Fora and it is tried to be submitted that the Regulations framed by the National Commission superceded the Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules of 2000. It is further contended by them that even the High Court issued an order that 50% business of the Court shall be in Marathi and therefore, it is not mandatory that whole business of the Subordinate Judiciary shall be in Marathi. According to them, this has been done with a view to allow the working in other languages also. They further contended that if the larger issue is required to be considered, their submissions are required to be heard by the State Commission. It is further submitted that if the system of translation or for filing in Marathi is made compulsory, cost of litigation will increase and the consumers in metropolitan cities like Mumbai will suffer.
Thus, what we find that firstly, the grievance is in respect of consumers from cosmopolitan cities especially who claimed that they do not know the Marathi, secondly, it is in respect of cost of the litigation and thirdly, the Central Rules and the Regulations do not provide for any language for the District Consumer Forum and that the Rules of 2000 stands superceded by the National Commission's Regulations of 2005. This is the sum and substance of the arguments of respondent Nos.2to5.
Consumer Courts Advocates Association which appeared by way of intervener have initially tried to submit that they have been intervening in the several matters in the public interest and thereby tried to make out a case of 'locus standi' in this proceeding. However, we do not find that the question of locus standi of said Association is involved in the present matter since they are appearing in the representative capacity as officers of the State Commission, since their members are regularly appearing before us and District Consumer Forums.
We equally find it appropriate to hear them in the larger public interest and for convenience.
On going through the written submissions of Consumer Courts Advocates Association, what we find that they have categorically stated that -
"we are all for the use of Marathi in the Fora. Having stated this in unambiguous manner, we submit that not only law but procedure and practice all are important. In that contest, nature and powers of Fora including the Hon'ble Commission have to be looked into. The rule making powers are given to the State Government, Central Government and power to frame regulations is given to the National Commission. Question of uniform procedure under section 24-B in respect of State Commission are given to the National Commission. Such powers of State Commission are only with reference to the District Consumer Forum and for the State Commission itself."
Then, in Para 6, Consumer Courts Advocates Association has stated that the -
"Question arises whether Suo Motu powers can be and should be exercised by this Hon'ble Commission in controversial matter particularly in view of the reluctance or almost refusal to implement settled law embodied in Regulation No.16 of the Regulations of 2005, as gullible consumers are exploited by unscrupulous elements under the disguise of authorised representatives who are now termed as "Touts and Busybodies". Therefore, this issue is priority which should be taken for implementation rather than issue of language which is only question of medium."
So, before we go into the other details, on reading the written submissions of the intervener/Consumer Courts Advocates Association, what we find that the Intervener accepted the Rule 6(1) and categorically stated that they are all for the use of Marathi in the Fora.
This is a statement made by the Consumer Courts Advocates Association in a representative capacity and therefore, Consumer Courts Advocates Association accepts that Rule 6(1) shall be implemented. Only grievance they are making is that instead of giving priority for implementation of Rule 6(1), the State Commission should have entered into an area of implementation of Regulation 16 (6)&(7) which deals with the 'Touts and Busybodies' called 'Authorised Representatives and Power of Attorney holders', which are appearing before this Commission or District Consumer Forums usually. What is important to be noted is that, they are giving importance to Regulation 16 (6)&(7) because, according to them, the Authorised Representatives and the Power of Attorney holders appearing in number of matters and thereby 'Touts and Busybodies' are spoiling proceedings in Consumer Fora and therefore, they find it that said provision should be rigorously implemented. So, they have raised a dispute in respect of execution and implementation, on priority basis of Regulation 16(6)&(7). We make it clear that presently we are dealing with the Rule 6(1) in this Revision Petition under the above referred circumstances and what we find that so far as implementation of Rule 6(1) is concerned, on the basis of the statement made in Para No.5, its implementation is accepted by the Consumer Courts Advocates Association.
So far as grievance of the Consumer Courts Advocates Association in respect of implementation of Regulation 16(6)&(7) is concerned, we make it clear that occasionally, when some of the Authorised Representatives appeared before us, more specifically in the matters of medical negligence, Mr.J.M. Baphna being a President of Consumer Courts Advocates Association has taken an objection for their appearance.
However, we have told Mr.Baphna that it is better that Consumer Courts Advocates Association or any person desirous of an investigation as contemplated under Regulation 16(6)&(7), shall file an appropriate application with particulars of the appearances of the Authorised Representatives and/or Power of Attorney holders and thereafter, after following the principle of audi alteram parte, decide the grievance made by them. However, no such application, with particulars has been so far filed before the State Commission. However, if such an application if filed in an appropriate way in an appropriate proceeding as against the appropriate Authorised Representative, no doubt, the State Commission will enter into an inquiry as desired under the Regulation 16(6)&(7). Further, we make it clear that in the absence of such application, particulars, it will not be appropriate at our part to enter into this controversy unless, we possess particulars and data to allege as against any Authorized Representative or Power of Attorney holders to initiate suo-motu action.
Coming to the main question again, it requires to be stated that Rule 6(1) of the Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 2000 is in force since 16/02/2000 and it has been already implemented and followed by the District Consumer Forums in the State of Maharashtra. We make it clear that at this stage, we are not supposed to go into validity of the said rule. The Rules as framed by the State Government are applicable to us and we have to implement them. But, since question is raised, we are dealing with it pointing out the provisions from the Constitution and the Act. Part XVII of Chapter-I deals with the language of the Union while Chapter II deals with the regional languages, Chapter III deals with the language of the Supreme Court and High Court and Chapter IV is dealing with the special directives. At this stage, we clarify that we are not concerned with the language of the Union in the present case. We are also not concerned with the language used in the Supreme Court and the High Court as provided in Chapter III and therefore, those provisions are not applicable and are not required to be considered.
Only provisions of Chapter II, namely, Article 345 and Article 350 from Chapter IV required reference and consideration. Article 345 is as follows :-
"345. Official language or languages of a State
- Subject to the provisions of articles 346 and 347, the Legislature of a State may by law adopt any one or more of the languages in use in the State or Hindi as the language or languages to be used for all or any of the official purposes of that State.
Provided that, until the Legislature of the State otherwise provides by law, the English language shall continue to be used for those official purposes within the State for which it was being used immediately before the commencement of this Constitution."
Thus, on reading Article 345 it is clear that the State Legislature has a power to make a law to adopt any one or more languages to be used in the State or Hindi as a language or languages to be used for all or any of the official purposes of that State. However, proviso to the said Article provides that until the Legislature of the State otherwise provides by law, the English language shall continue to be used for those official purposes within the State for which it was being used immediately before the commencement of this Constitution.
Simple analysis of this provision is that after the law adopting the language has been passed by the State Legislature, the official language of the State will be as per the State law and proviso thereafter shall not apply. However, until the said law is made, the English shall be a language used for the purposes for which it was being used immediately before the commencement of the Constitution. It is to be noted that the State Legislature of Maharashtra has passed a legislation known as 'The Maharashtra Official Languages Act, 1964', Act No.V of 1965 which has been brought into force on 26/01/1965 and also by subsequent Notifications. Section 3 which has been brought into force on 26/01/1965 is applicable to the business in the Legislature of the State and for deciding this Revision Petition, we need not ponder upon said section of the said Act. Section 4 of the said Act is as follows :-
"Subject to the provisions of this Act, Marathi shall as from the appointed day, be the language to be used for all official purposes referred to in the Article 345 of the Constitution, as respects the State of Maharashtra except such purposes as the State Government may, by rules issued from time to time in the Official Gazette, specify and Hindi may be used as the official language for such excepted purposes."
Section 5 of the said Act deals with the language to be used in the House of the Legislature of the State. We are not concerned with this in this case. What is important to be noted is that that Section 4 has made it mandatory that the official language of the State of Maharashtra is Marathi language. If we read section 4 along with Article 345 it follows that the Marathi language is a language to be used for all official purposes and Section 4 has not provided any reservation or restriction on application of Section 4. Thus, Section5 part first also provides that, "Marathi language shall be official language for all purposes of state except for such purposes as the State Government may by rules issued from time to time in Official Gazette may specify and for such exceptional purpose Hindi may be used as the official language. It is to be noted that the State Government has not notified in Official Gazette any rules making exception to application of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Official Language Act, 1964. There is no rule notified in Official Gazette making any exception to application of Section 4 of said Act to the District Consumer Forums. On the contrary, Rule 6(1) of Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 2000 specifically further clarifies that the Marathi shall be language of District Consumer Forum. Therefore, taking advantage of exception clause, even Hindi cannot be used as a language in District Consumer Forum. What is important to be noted is that that after the application of Maharashtra Official Languages Act, 1964 and after application of Section 4 read with Rule 6(1) of Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 2000, the use of English language in District Consumer Forum is out of question. Only Marathi can be a language for official purpose of District Consumer Forum.
Respondent No.1 has relied upon the notifications issued by State Government under Section 272 of Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 137 of Code of Civil Procedure, so as to show that Marathi shall be language of District Consumer Forum. However, those notifications have been issued to Subordinate Courts and District Courts under Hon'ble High Court. What is important to be noted that the Consumer Fora are not covered by those notifications. Apart from that District Consumer Forums are not the District Courts or the Subordinate Courts, so as to have superintendence.
More specifically, Article 325 may not apply in respect of Consumer Fora but, what is important that therefore, we need not refer to those Government Resolutions which have been referred to by respondent No.1/complainant in respect of application of the Marathi language to the District Consumer Forum. However, District Consumer Forum has been constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for redressal of the grievances of the consumers located within the State of Maharashtra. Their pay, salaries and allowances have been paid out of fund of the Government of Maharashtra and the District Consumer Forums are statutory bodies discharged functions as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Therefore, District Consumer Forums are entertaining grievances of the citizens who are residing in the State of Maharashtra. Therefore, as official language of the State of Maharashtra is Marathi, using the powers under Section 4 of the said Act, the State of Maharashtra while framing Rules under the Act, have framed Rule 6(1) providing that the language of the District Consumer Forum shall be Marathi. Thereby, those rules are notified and therefore, Rule 6(1) has been framed by the State of Maharashtra in view of powers vested in the State of Maharashtra as provided in the Article 345 of the Constitution and the Maharashtra Official Languages Act, 1964, Section 4 and therefore, we find that the rule has been properly framed.
There is one more angle which requires reference of Article 350. Article 350 states as under :-
"350.
Language to be used in representations for redress of grievances - Every person shall be entitled to submit a representation for the redress of any grievance to any officer or authority of the Union or a State in any of the languages used in the Union or in the State, as the case may be."
In view of this Article, every person is and shall be entitled to submit representation for redress of any grievances to any officer or authority of the State in any of the languages used in the State. Official language used in the State is the Marathi as stated earlier and therefore, person is entitled to make his grievance in Marathi language.
There is no other language which has been recognized either under the Constitution or under the Act which is applicable in the State of Maharashtra as an official language for redressal of the grievances of the person. Therefore, if the grievance of the person is in Marathi language, naturally the reply to said grievance shall be in Marathi, because the person making grievance must understand the reply. If the reply given in any other language or in English and if the complainant does not know that language, then the whole adjudication system is affected and the complainants are prejudicely put to inconvenience. The ultimate result is that the language of the District Consumer Forum shall be Marathi. Therefore, complaint which is lodged with the District Consumer Forum shall be in Marathi and so also the reply version shall be in Marathi.
Much has been stated in respect of cost of translation. The translation is required to be made when the case is required to be placed before the National Commission. We make it clear at this stage that so far as the State Commission is concerned, we are not asking for translation of the orders or any documents if it happened to be in Marathi or English. Therefore, we find that translation is presently required to be done in respect of documents and orders when the party approaches to the National Commission or the Supreme Court. However, in spite of Marathi judgements being delivered since 2000 by the various District Consumer Forums, there was no grievance and the appropriate documents were translated and filed before the National Commission and the Supreme Court. It further requires to be mentioned that same is the case in respect of judgements of the Subordinate Courts and the District Courts when those are delivered in Marathi. Even, the High Court has directed the Subordinate Courts to write at least 50% judgements in Marathi and slowly the Subordinate Courts are proceeding to write their all judgements and business in official language Marathi. In all those matters also appeals and the Revisions comes to the High Court and also goes to the Supreme Court wherein the documents are required to be translated by the parties. Therefore, by introduction of Rule 6(1) of the Maharashtra Protection Rules, 2000, nothing abnormal and out of way has been done by the State Government.
Now, it is settled that the official language of the State is Marathi, which shall be followed as per the directions of the State by the various Authorities and the Subordinate Courts and various Tribunals. In the circumstances, on the part of State Government, a policy decision for enforcement of official language, cannot be said to be in any way arbitrary, unjust and therefore, the ultimate result follows that Rule 6(1) has to be followed by the parties appearing before the District Consumer Forum and the District Consumer Forum is also under obligation to see that said Rule is implemented. Cost of translation as analysed above, cannot be a barrier for implementation of Rule 6(1).
The above referred reasoning also is an answer to the objection that the cost of the litigation increases. If the law requires things to be done in a particular manner, then it should be done in that manner only. Therefore, the result follows that the parties to the complaint, namely, complainant and opponent shall file their complaint and written version in Marathi. In case either party is not in a position to know the Marathi then they can file the complaint and reply version in Marathi by getting it translated before filing it before the District Consumer Forum. It is interesting to note that even we have come across many cases that the complaint or the written version is prepared in English, but while taking signature on the affidavit of said person, there is an endorsement that it is explained in Marathi or in the language known to the party. Thus, ignoring Rule 6(1), Marathi knowing party is asked to sign English complaint or reply version and/or affidavits. Therefore, when the party is unable to understand Marathi, the person who files complaint on behalf of said party can explain the complaint drafted in Marathi to him in his language and that will be an obligation of the Advocates, Authorised Representatives and the Power of Attorney holders. If the party himself desires to appear, who do not know Marathi, then since language of the District Consumer Forum is Marathi, he shall get his complaint or reply version translated and submit it.
Insistence of English or any other language or urge for particular language than official language for that purpose cannot be permitted and insisted upon. This is not for the purposes of maintaining regionalism but this is to maintain popular will of the State Legislature as reflected in the above referred Act and majesty of said Act of 1964.
There is one more angle that Section 24-B of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deals with the administrative control and it stated that -
"the National Commission shall have administrative control over all the State Commissions and in turn the State Commission shall have administrative control over all the District Consumer Forums within its jurisdiction in all matters referred to in sub-section (1)."
One of the controls which contemplated is furnishing of English translation of the judgement written in any language. This contemplates that the Parliament is aware of the fact that in the State, the language to be followed is other than the English language and therefore, in such circumstances, the National Commission may give a direction to provide English translation of the judgement written in any language. Therefore, language of the District Consumer Forum may be otherwise than the English has been considered while drafting Section 24-B by the Parliament and accordingly, administrative control has been vested with the National Commission. This also separately explained that the State can provide the official language as language of the District Consumer Forum and taking cognizance of such aspect, Section 24-B has been drafted by the Parliament. Therefore, it is inappropriate to contend that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a Central Statute and therefore, the State cannot provide any other language than the English. Such submissions are contrary to the Article 345 and 350 as stated above.
So, in the last analysis, we find that insistence of respondent No.1 to get a translated copy of reply version was justified one and the District Consumer Forums are under obligation to see that whenever, reply version and the complaint is filed in any other language than the Marathi, translation duly authenticated by the party is on record.
There was also discussion in respect of documents to be filed in support of the complaint and the reply version and the language to be used for the same. It is clarified that the original documents and xerox copies of the same will have to be produced in support of respective claims. If the documents relied upon by both sides are in Marathi, there is no problem.
If the documents relied upon by the parties are in English and one of the parties to the proceeding complained that he is not understanding the English, then it will be obligatory for the party to the proceeding relying upon the English documents, to provide translation of the same to the other side because other side must know what documents he has to face in the proceeding. If the documents produced by either party are other than the language known to the President and the Members of the District Consumer Forums, then both the parties shall have to produce a translation of those documents because in absence of those translated documents, it is not possible for the District Consumer Forum to decide the complaint on merits. No doubt, at initial stage, it may not be necessary for producing the documents along with translation but, as above stated, there may circumstances where translation is necessary and therefore, whenever such documents are presented by either party either in support of the complaint or reply version, it will be appropriate on the part of said party to undertake before the District Consumer Forum that the required translation of those documents will be filed as and when directed. This system is equally followed in the Bombay High Court also. Advocate who appeared for the Consumer Courts Advocates Association Mr.Paranjpe fairly conceded that he has no objection for such a procedure being introduced for the purposes of the documents produced in support of complaint and reply version. Therefore, to sum up, what we find that the Rule 6(1) is required to be implemented in the District Consumer Forums as desired by the State Government. Therefore, the complaint and written version, which are filed in the District Consumer Forum, shall be in Marathi. Whenever, complaint and written version has been filed in any other language than the Marathi or in English, it shall be accompanied with Marathi translation. It is equally permissible for the complainant and the opponents though they may not be knowing Marathi, to file a complaint and written version in Marathi with an endorsement that the Advocate, Authorised Representatives and/or Power of Attorney holders of the said party has explained the contents of the complaint and written version in English or in a language known to party. So far as documents which are produced in support of the complaint and the written version, those documents may be produced as it is i.e. in the language they are prepared by the parties, but if it happens that one of the party to the proceeding is not aware of said language and/or Members of the District Consumer Forum are not knowing the said language, then the party producing such documents shall produce duly authenticated translated copies of those documents. The party producing documents shall undertake to translate the documents as and when directed by District Consumer Forum. Such undertaking shall be given by party at the time of filing documents in support of complaint and/or reply version.
The last point which requires consideration is that Rule 6(1) is contrary to Regulations framed by the National Commission. This submission is misconceived. There is nothing contrary in the Regulations of National Commission so far as Rule 6(1) of Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 2000 is concerned.
Therefore, submission is rejected.
Accordingly, Suo-motu Revision Petition is allowed. Order of District Consumer Forum dated 05/01/2010 is hereby set aside. Copies of this order be circulated to all the District Consumer Forums in the State of Maharashtra.
Pronounced Dated the 29 November 2010 [Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase] PRESIDENT [Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar] Judicial Member [Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale] Member dd