Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Indian Medical Association vs V.P. Shantha & Ors on 13 November, 1995
In the Indian Medical Association case (supra) this Court noticed the
powers conferred on the serveral fora under the Act, the procedure
applicable (including the exercise of some powers of the Civil Court under
the Code of Civil Procedure having been made available to the fora under
the Act) and held that the nature of averments made in the complaint is not
by itself enough to arrive at a conclusion that the complaint raises such
complicated questions as cannot be determined by the NCDRC. It is only when
the dispute arising for adjudication is such as would require recording of
lengthy evidence not permissible within the scope of a summary enquiry that
a forum under the Act may ask the complainant to approach the Civil Court.
The fora made available under the Act are in addition to, and not in
derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force
and the jurisdiction of the conventional courts over such matters as are
now cognizable under the Act has not been taken away.
Amar Jwala Paper Mills (India) And Anr. vs State Bank Of India on 19 February, 1998
In Amar Jwala Paper Mills (India) and Anr. 's case (supra) this Court set
aside the order of NCDRC relegating a complainant to a Civil Court in spite
of the complexity of the matter because the hearing had almost concluded
before the Commission.
Bharathi Knitting Company vs Dhl Worldwide Expresscourier Division ... on 9 May, 1996
In Bharthi Knitting Co. v. DHL Worldwide, [1996] 4 SCC 704,
Supreme Court has said, "Each case depends upon its own facts. In an
appropriate case where there is an acute dispute of facts necessarily a
Tribunal has to refer the parties to original civil suit established under
CPC or appropriate State law to have the claims dealt with between the
parties". Present is certainly a case involving an acute dispute.
Section 23 in The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Synco Industries vs State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur And Ors on 15 January, 2002
In Synco Industries case
(supra) this Court upheld that order of NCDRC holding the complaint before
it not a fit case to be tried under the Act and allowing liberty to the
complainant to approach the Civil Court because this Court agreed with the
opinion formed by the Commission that "very detailed evidence would have to
be led, both to prove the claim and thereafter to prove the damages and
expenses". The Court concluded that in any event it was "not appropriate
case to be heard and disposed of in a summary fashion."
Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors vs Shrinath Chaturvedi on 12 August, 2002
In Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors. 's case (supra) this Court dealing with the
contention that complicated questions of facts cannot be decided in summary
proceedings held - "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 the Commission or Forum is required to
have summary trial would hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to
approach the civil court. For the trial to be just and reasonable, a 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
the legislature has provided an alternative, efficacious, simple,
inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers and that sould not be
curtained on such ground. It would also be a totally wrong assumption that
because summary trial is provided, justice cannot be done when some
questions of fact are required to be dealt with or decided. The Act
provides sufficient safeguards."
1