BOMBAY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI
S.P. Tavade President and
Vijay C. Premchandani, Member
Vodafone-Idea Co. – Petitioner
versus
Bapusaheb N. Deshmukh – Respondent
Revision Petition No.87 of 2024
Decided on 7.1.2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17 – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 47 – Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Award of Lok Adalat – Legality of – In the present case we perused the order passed by the Lok Adalat consent of both the parties were taken at the time of passing order – In view of the Section 21 of The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 the said order become final and unchallengeable – On facts, the District Consumer Commission While Admitting the Consumer Complaint regarding the same issue has committed error. The petitioner is succeeding in its ground that the Consumer complaint is not maintainable in law as issue settled between the parties before Lok Adalat – The provisions contained in Section 21 by which the Award is treated as if it were a decree is intended only to clothe the Award with enforceability. In view of the provisions of Section 21 by which it is to be treated as a decree which cannot be challenged, undoubtedly, by way of an appeal in view of the express provisions forbidding it, unless it is set aside in other appropriate proceedings, it becomes enforceable. The purport of the law giver is only to confer it with enforceability in like manner as if it were a decree. Thus, the legal fiction that the Award is to be treated as a decree goes no further. [Paras 6 to 7]
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER
Vijay C. Premchandani, Member—The Petitioner is filed the present Revision Petition Under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Brief Facts
2. It is the contention of the Respondent/Complainant that he did not get the telecom services when he was travelling during 7th September 2022 to 22nd September 2022 to Kashmir/Ladakh and therefore he refused to pay the bill for the period. The said issue of non-payment of bill despite several reminders was taken up by the Petitioner/OP before the Lok Adalat in which the Respondent/Complainant participated and made his submissions. Both the parties i.e. the Petitioner/OP and the Respondent/Complainant then decided to resolve the issue amicably and settled the matter by accepting nominal payment of Rs. 50 from the Respondent/Complainant and accordingly an award was passed by the Lok Adalat on 9th December 2023, Having settled the issue of non-availability of service verses non-payment of outstanding bill through the mechanism of Lok Adalat, a Complaint filed before the District Commission raising the issue of non-availability of telecom service during the aforesaid period was not maintainable. The Hon’ble District Consumer Commission issued notice before admission of Complaint. The present petitioner resisted admission by filing a reply bringing these facts on records. In spite of that the Consumer Complaint was admitted, being aggrieved by the order of admission dated 4th June 2024 passed by the Hon’ble Commission Additional Thane District in C.C. No. 344/2023 this Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner. The petitioner prayed that admission order dated 4th June 2024 passed by the District Consumer Commission Add. Thane be quashed and set aside and the Complaint No. 344 of 2023 be dismissed.
3. This Commission issued Notice to the Respondent (Original Complainant), The Respondent appeared and filed his Written Notes of Arguments. Hard Both Sides. Perused Petition, Grounds, Documents and Notes of Arguments.
Law and Reasoning
4. The present petition is filed by the petition on mainly two grounds (i) The Consumer Complaint is not maintainable in Law (ii) Non Joinder and misjoinder of Parties. The Advocate for the Petitioner Argued that the Dispute was amicably settled by and between the Parties before the National Lok Adalat on 9th December 2023 at the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Vile Parle, Mumbai. During the Argument the Advocate of the Petitioner relied the copy of the Order passed by the Lok Adalat Court. Hence prayed that Order passed by the District Consumer Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 344 of 2023 by admitting the Consumer Complaint is illegal and required to be set aside. The Respondent (Original Complainant) in person argued that he is senior citizen and suffering of heart disease. Further Respondent argued that Petitioner company adopted unfair trade practice by not providing proper services and he was forced to sign before Lok Adalat also not allowed to put his objection on consent terms. The Respondent Argued that the District Consumer Commission is rightly admitted the Complaint, hence prayed to reject the petition with cost.
5. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1987 Act’). We may advert to the scheme of the 1987 Act, Section 2(a) defines ‘case’:—
(a) ‘Case’ includes a suit or any proceeding before a Court. Section 2(aaa) defines ‘Court’:
(aaa) ‘Court’ means a civil, criminal or revenue Court and includes any tribunal or any other authority constituted under any law for the time being in force to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Section 2(d) defines Lok Adalat as meaning a Lok Adalat organized under Chapter VL. 12. Chapter VI contains Sections 19 to 22. Section 19(1) contemplates Lok Adalat’s being organised at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as is thought fit by the relevant bodies mentioned therein. Section 19(2) is significant as it
(1) Enforceability – The provisions contained in Section 21 by which the Award is treated as if it were a decree is intended only to clothe the Award with enforceability.(2) Award – The purport of th....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the principles of natural justice, objectivity, fair play, equity, and other principles of justice as outlined in Section 22D of the Legal ....
A valid settlement in a National Lok Adalat requires the presence of parties and their free consent; without an authorized representative, such settlements are invalid.
A valid settlement in a National Lok Adalat necessitates the presence and consent of all parties involved, as their absence undermines the settlement's legitimacy.
The court distinguished between billing disputes and supply of electricity issues, emphasizing the necessity of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms established by statutes.
Section 22(C) determine jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat and it adumbrate that the Permanent Lok Adalat shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence, which is compo....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.