Back
MAHARASTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S.B. Mhase, President, P.N. Kashalkar and S.P. Lale, Members
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI - Appellant
Versus
ATUL CHANDRAKANT TAWADE GOREGAON (E) AND ORS. - Respondents
Revision Petition No. RP/10/46
Decided on : 29-11-2010
None., for the Appellant; Mr. Paranjape, Advocate, Mr. S. Datar, Advocate, Mr. S.B. Prabhawalkar, Advocate Proxy for Mr. U.B. Wavikar, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation to implement Rule 6(1) of the Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 2000, which mandates the use of Marathi as the language of the District Consumer Forum, in accordance with the Constitution, the Maharashtra Official Languages Act, 1964, and Section 24-B of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
Language - Consumer Protection - Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 2000 - Rule 6(1) - The judgment discusses the implementation of Rule 6(1) of the Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 2000, which mandates the use of Marathi as the language of the District Consumer Forum. The court emphasizes the legal provisions under Article 345 and 350 of the Constitution, the Maharashtra Official Languages Act, 1964, and Section 24-B of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to support the use of Marathi as the official language. The court also addresses the issue of translation of documents and the objections raised regarding the cost of litigation. The judgment concludes that Rule 6(1) must be implemented, and complaints and written versions filed in the District Consumer Forum should be in Marathi, with translations provided when necessary.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a complaint in Marathi before the District Consumer Forum, Mumbai Suburban, as required by Rule 6(1) of the Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 2000. The respondent requested Marathi translation of the written version filed by the opponents, which was rejected by the District Consumer Forum. The respondent then filed a complaint with the State Commission, leading to a suo motu Revision Petition. The court considered the legal provisions and arguments regarding the use of Marathi in the District Consumer Forum.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Rule 6(1) of the Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 2000, mandating the use of Marathi as the language of the District Consumer Forum, is in line with the Constitution, the Maharashtra Official Languages Act, 1964, and Section 24-B of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court emphasized the entitlement of individuals to submit grievances in the language used in the State and the obligation to provide translations when necessary. The court concluded that Rule 6(1) must be implemented, and complaints and written versions filed in the District Consumer Forum should be in Marathi, with translations provided when necessary.
Issues: The main issue was the implementation of Rule 6(1) of the Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 2000, regarding the use of Marathi as the language of the District Consumer Forum. The court also addressed objections related to the cost of translation and the alleged conflict with regulations framed by the National Commission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the legal provisions under Article 345 and 350 of the Constitution, the Maharashtra Official Languages Act, 1964, and Section 24-B of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which support the use of Marathi as the official language. The court emphasized the entitlement of individuals to submit grievances in the language used in the State and the obligation to provide translations when necessary. The court concluded that Rule 6(1) must be implemented, and complaints and written versions filed in the District Consumer Forum should be in Marathi, with translations provided when necessary.
Final Decision: The court allowed the suo motu Revision Petition, set aside the order of the District Consumer Forum, and directed the implementation of Rule 6(1) of the Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, 2000. The court emphasized that complaints and written versions filed in the District Consumer Forum should be in Marathi, with translations provided when necessary.
ORDER
S.B. Mhase, President - Heard respective Advocates for the parties.
1. 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. 2 to 5 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. 2 to 5. 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 16.2.2000. 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 of other compliances and the procedure to be followed in the District Consumer Forum.
2. Said complaint filed by respondent No. 1 was admitted and after admission notices were issued to respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, 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. 2 to 5 should have filed written version in Marathi. Respondent No. 1 submitted that he is 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. 2 to 5 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. 2 to 5 refused to give Marathi translation.
3. Arguments on this application were heard by the District Consumer Forum and the District Consumer Forum by order dated 5.1.2010 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 26.3.2010 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.
4-5. In view of powers which are vested in the State Government under
