Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President &
Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Member
NAURATA MAL GUPTA—Appellant
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.—Respondents
Appeal Case No. 149 of 2004—Decided on 24.3.2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Sameer Sachdev, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.s 1 and 2: Mr. K.C. Sahu, Govt. Pleader.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, particularly Section 13(2)(a), should be interpreted in a manner that upholds the principles of natural justice and allows for a reasonable opportunity for both parties to present their case.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Consumer Complaint - Section 13(2)(a) - Section 13 - Section 2(1)(g) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act and its interpretation in light of the case of Topline Shoes Ltd. v. Corporation Bank. The court emphasized that the provision is procedural in nature and should be interpreted keeping in mind the principles of natural justice. The court's decision to set aside the impugned order and remand the case was influenced by the interpretation of this provision and the principles of natural justice.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a consumer complaint against the Union of India and others regarding excessive electricity bills. The District Forum dismissed the complaint due to the absence of evidence and refusal to grant further opportunity to the respondents to file a written statement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the appellant's submission that the District Forum should have offered a reasonable opportunity to the complainant and the respondents to file evidence, considering the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the principles of natural justice.
Issues: The main issue was the dismissal of the complaint by the District Forum due to the absence of evidence and refusal to grant further opportunity to the respondents to file a written statement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provision of Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act is procedural in nature and should be interpreted in line with the principles of natural justice. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the District Forum to allow the respondents to file a written statement and afford a reasonable opportunity to both parties to file evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the complaint case was remanded to the District Forum with directions to allow the respondents to file a written statement and afford a reasonable opportunity to both parties to file evidence.
Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President—This is an appeal filed against order dated 17.12.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No. 1061 of 2002—Naurata Mal Gupta v. Union of India & Others.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant referred to Para 7 of the impugned order where the District Forum made, inter alia, the following observations :
“....But it is not shown by him as to for which period the arrears of Rs. 36,344/- had accumulated. The proper procedure for him would have been to file copies of all the bills from 10.2.1999 upto date and then to show as to how much energy was consumed in each of the billing cycles and in which particular billing cycles the excessive bill had been prepared and on what grounds it was being attacked or challenged. But he has not produced the copies of these bills. Therefore, the essential and necessary date for deciding this consumer complaint is singularly missing. Hence, it cannot be said that deficiency in service has been committed by the O.Ps. So, this complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.”
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant took us through the impugned order to show that the complainant had filed his affidavit, copies of bills, copy of earlier complaint bearing No. 846 of 1999 decided by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh on 11.1.2002 with reference to another bill though for the period in question when the premises remained locked and not used. A mini bill was also placed on record.
4. The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 who were represented through the Government Pleader did not file written statement despite grant of statutory time of more than 45 days and the District Forum refused to grant further opportunity to them for filing their written statement vide order dated 28.3.2003 and as such, the case was undefended insofar as O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 i.e., Union of India through Chief Engineer, Electricity, U.T. Secretariat, Sector 9D, Chandigarh and Sub-Divisional Officer, Electricity Operation, Sub Division No. 1, Sector 23-C, Chandigarh are concerned and were accordingly proceeded with.
5. O.P. No. 3 - Municipal Corporation through Assistant Commissioner, Sector 17, Chandigarh and O.P. No. 4 Shri Krishan Kumar Sharma, Booth No. 2927/A, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh were proceeded ex parte. However, O.P. No. 3 had filed written statement to the effect that the electricity bills were issued by O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 and O.P. No. 4 is alleged to be the tenant of the appellant.
6. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the District Forum instead of proceeding to decide the complaint in the absence of the evidence, which it required for deciding the complaint case, ought to have offered a reasonable opportunity to the complainant considering the fact that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short hereinafter referred to as the C.P. Act] has been enacted for providing better protection to the consumer and further in view of the fact that the averments made in the complaint were not even replied to by the O.Ps./respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Not only this, it was contended that the District Forum could direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who were represented through the Government Pleader to place on record the basis for issuing the disputed bill showing the arrears in respect of the premises in question.
7. We find considerable merit in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Moreover, Mr. K.C. Sahu, Govt. Pleader who accepted the notice of appeal on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and appeared before us sought liberty to file written statement in respect of the averments made in the complaint case and contended that the right to file written statement was denied only on the ground that the statutory period of 45 days as provided in Section 13(2)(a) of the C.P. Act had expired.
8. So far as the righ
