VERY IMPORTANT POINT
High Court was right in holding that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot be said to be unconstitutional but it erred in observing that Section 25 of the Act does not empower Consumer Courts to execute its own orders. Consumer Courts have power to make its order effective.

Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Writs challenging its constitutionality that Parliament has no legislative competence to establish a parellel hierarchy of Consumer Courts vis-a-vis Civil Courts in the absence of suitable amendment in Article 368-Rejected by High Court of Karnataka-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether High Court is right in upholding constitutionality of Consumer Protection Act? (Yes)-Writ Petitions under Article 32 challenging vires of Consumer Protection Act-Whether be dismissed? (Yes).
       Held : In view of the constitutional scheme relating to legislative competence of the Parliament and State Legislature there cannot be any doubt or dispute that the Parliament has the requisite legislative competence to enact the said Act. (Para 35)
       Once it is held that the Parliament had the legislative competence to enact the said Act, the submissions of the learned counsel that the relevant provisions of the Constitution required amendments must be neglected. (Para 37)
       We, therefore, are clearly of the opinion that the said Act cannot be said to be unconstitutional. It may be true that there does not exist any provision for transfer of case from one forum to the other or there does not exist any provision to grant injunction. Absence of such provisions in our opinion would not render the statute ultra vires the Constitution or unworkable. The very fact that in a given case a party under the said Act may approach upto this Court and/ or may otherwise take recourse to the remedy of judicial review, the interests of the parties must be held to have been sufficiently safeguarded. The provisions relating to power to approach appellate court by a party aggrieved by a decision of the forums/State Commissions as also the power of High Court and this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and Article 32 of this Court apart from Section 23 of the Act provide for adequate safeguards. Furthermore, primarily the jurisdiction of the forum commissions is to grant damages. In the event, a complainant feels that he will have a better and effective remedy in a civil court as he may have to seek for an order of injunction, he indisputably may file a suit in an appropriate civil court or may take recourse to some other remedies as provided for in other statutes. We, therefore, agree with the judgment of the Karnataka High Court. (Paras 50 to 54)
       (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 25-Enforcement of the orders passed by Consumer Fora through Civil Court Agencies-High Court holding that Consumer Redressal Agencies have no power to execute its orders-Appeal by State against to Supreme Court-Whether High Court is right? (No)-State s appeal allowed.
       Held : The terminology used in Section 25 of the Act to the effect in the event of its inability to execute it is of great significance. Section 25, on a plain reading, goes to show that the provision contained therein presuppose that the Forum or the Commission would be entitled to execute its order. It, however, may send the matter for its execution to a court only in the event it is unable to do so. Such a contingency may arise only in a given situation but in our considered opinion the same does not lead to the conclusion that the Consumer Courts cannot execute its own order and by compulsion it has to send all its orders for execution to the civil courts. Such construction of Section 25 in our opinion would violate the plain language used therein and, thus, must be held to be untenable. (Para 63)
       Held finally : For the reasons aforesaid in Writ Petition 417 of 1996, Writ Petition 12 of 2002, Civil Appeal 4613 and Civil Appeal 4614 of 1999 are dismissed and Civil Appeal 9927 of 1996 is allowed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, however, there shall be no order as to costs. (Para 65)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.-The primal question involved in this batch of appeals and the Writ Petitions is the constitutionality of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called "the Act").

2. Civil Appeals Nos. 4613 and 4614 of 1999 filed by Vishwabharathi House Building Cooperative Society arise out of a judgment and order dated 18.12.1998 passed by a division bench of the High Court of Karnataka upholding the vires of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act), State of Karnataka has filed the Appeal being C.A. No.9927 of 1996 against the judgment and order of the Karnataka High Court questioning certain observations made therein as regards interpretation of Section 25 of the Act.

3. Dr. R.D. Prabhu and Shri. B. Krishna Bhat and others filed the Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India questioning the constitutionality of the said Act.

4. The contentions raised on behalf of Appellants Petitioners are as under:

(1) (a) The Parliament is not empowered to establish hierarchy of Courts like the District Fora, State Commission and the National Commission parallel to the hierarchy of Courts established under the Constitution, namely, District Courts, High Courts and Supreme Court in the absence of a suitable amendment made in the Constitution of India in terms of Article 368 thereof.

(b) Such hierarchy of consumer courts established under the Act would result in conflict of decisions with the hierarchy of courts established under the Constitution dealing with similar matters.

(2) The Parliament having regard to the provisions of Articles 323-A & 323-B of the Constitution of India could not enact the Act by establishing forums which are substitutes of the Civil Courts including the High Court.

(3) The provisions of the said Act strike at the independence of the judiciary.

(4) As the Act does not contain any provision to transfer a case from one consumer court to another and furthermore the forum and the Commissions having no power to pass interim orders, the functioning thereof is unworkable.

(5) The Parliament can only establish courts which may deal with special subjects specified therefor but not a court which will run parallel to civil courts.

5. Before adverting to the question as regard the competence of the Parliament to enact the said Act, we may notice the history of legislation leading to enactment of the said Act.

6. The Secretary General, United Nations submitted draft guidelines for consumer protection to the Economic and Social Council (UNESCO) in 1983. The General Assembly of the United Nations upon extensive discussions and negotiations among governments on this scope and content thereof adopted the guidelines which inter alia provide for the following:

"Taking into account the interests and needs of consumers in all countries, particularly those in developing countries, recognizing that consumers often face imbalances in economic terms, educational level, and bargaining power, and bearing in mind that consumer should have the right of access to non-hazardous products, as well as the importance of promoting just, equitable and sustainable economic and social development, these guidelines for consumer protection have the following objectives:

(a) To assist countries in achieving or maintaining adequate protection for their population as consumers;

(b) To facilitate production and distribution patterns responsive to the needs and desires of consumers;

(c) To encourage high levels of ethical conduct for those engaged in the production and distribution of goods and services to consumers;

(d) To assist countries in curbing abusive business practices by all enterprises at the national and international levels which adversely affect consumers;

(e) To facilitate the development of independent consumer groups;

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 59

VERY IMPORTANT POINTHigh Court was right in holding that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot be said to be unconstitutional but it erred in observing that Section 25 of the Act does not empower Consumer Courts to execute its own orders. Consumer Courts have power to make its order effective.

Cases Referred (11)

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
High Court was right in holding that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot be said to be unconstitutional but it erred in observing that Section 25 of the Act does not empower Consumer Courts to execute its own orders. Consumer Courts have power to make its order effective.