SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Garg, President &
Mrs. Sushma Tanwar, Member
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION—Appellant
versus
SUNIL KUMAR & ORS.—Respondents
Appeal No. 2139 of 2003—Decided on 21.4.2005

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. V.B. Mathur, Advocate.
For the Respondents: None.

The judgment established the applicability of 'class action' provisions under Clause (c) of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act - Complaint against bus service - Section 12 - Act of 1986 - 15

Fact of the Case:

The complainant-respondents filed a joint complaint against the appellant, claiming compensation for inconvenience caused by a malfunctioning AC in the bus. The District Forum allowed the complaint, and the appellant filed an appeal.

Finding of the Court:

The court confirmed the findings of the District Forum that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the appellant due to the malfunctioning AC.

Issues: The main contention was the maintainability of the joint complaint without prior permission of the District Forum.

Ratio Decidendi: The court rejected the argument that the joint complaint was not maintainable, citing provisions for 'class action' under Clause (c) of Section 12 of the Act of 1986.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the District Forum.

ORDER

Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Garg, President—Heard at the admission stage.

2. This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1986”) has been filed by the appellant against the respondents with the prayer that the order dated 13.10.2003 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur-II, Jaipur in Case No. 652/2002 by which the joint complaint filed by five complainant-respondents under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 1,500/- to each of the respondent-complainants for causing inconvenience to them in AC bus as well as towards litigation expenses, be quashed and set aside.

3. It arises in the following circumstances:

It may be stated here that the respondent-complainants filed a joint complaint against the appellant before the learned District Forum, Jaipur-II, Jaipur stating inter alia that on 31.1.2002 they were travelling in AC bus of the appellant bearing No. RJ-14P-9154 after taking ticket of Rs. 353/- for each complainant-respondent from Jaipur to Udaipur. It was further stated in the complaint that though it was an AC bus, but its AC was not functioning properly which resulting in making the atmosphere in the bus hot thereby causing inconvenience to the complainant-respondents and for that, they claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- for each of them.

A reply was filed by the appellant and the case of the appellant was that the AC of the bus in question was functioning properly. Hence, the complainant-respondents were not entitled to the relief sought for and the complaint filed by them deserves to be dismissed.

After hearing the parties, the learned District Forum, Jaipur-II, Jaipur through impugned order dated 13.10.2003 allowed the complaint of the complainant-respondents in the manner as indicated above holding inter alia that no doubt so far as the AC of the bus in question was concerned, that might be functioning properly, but from the affidavit and the statements of the employees of the appellant, it was found that the glasses of the windows of the bus in question were loose and, thus, air was coming from them and because of that fact, the atmosphere in the bus in question was hot one and it was not so cool as it ought to have been if AC would have been functioning properly.

Aggrieved from the said order dated 13.10.2003 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur-II, Jaipur, this appeal has been filed by the appellant.

4. In this appeal, the main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the joint complaint filed by the complainant-respondents was not maintainable as per Clause (c) of Section 12 of the Act of 1986 without the prior permission of the District Forum and since prior permission of the District Forum was not obtained, therefore, the impugned order suffers from basic infirmity and illegality and, thus, the same cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and set aside and this appeal deserves to be allowed.

5. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and gone through the entire materials available on record.

6. For convenience, Clause (c) of Section 12 of the Act of 1986 is quoted here:

“Sect. 12. Manner in which complaint shall be made.—(1) A complaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided may be filed with a District Forum by—

(a) ....

(b) ....

(c) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest, with the permission of the District Forum, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all consumers so interested; or...”

Before proceeding further, it may be stated here that so far as the findings of the learned District Forum to the effect that windows of the AC bus in question were found loose one are concerned, the same should be treated as confirmed one as they are based on correct appreciation of entire materials including affidavit and stateme












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top