Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 7975 of 2001
PETITIONER:
DR. J.J. MERCHANT & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SHRINATH CHATURVEDI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/08/2002
BENCH:
M.B. Shah, Bisheshwar Prasad Singh & H.K. SEMA.
JUDGMENT:
Shah, J.
Miscellaneous Petition No.53 of 2000 was filed before the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter
referred to as "National Commission"), New Delhi in Original
Petition No.252 of 1993 by the appellants - doctors praying that
complaint filed for alleged medical negligence be either dismissed as
according to them complicated questions of law and facts arise which
can best be decided by the Civil Court or in the alternative the
proceeding be stayed during the pendency of criminal prosecution
pending against them in criminal court at Mumbai. That application
was rejected by the Commission. Hence, this appeal.
In the present case, complainant respondent filed Original
Petition before the National Commission on 26.8.1993 alleging that
his son aged 21 years was admitted to the Breach Candy Hospital,
Mumbai on 4.8.1992 for operation of slip disc as he was suffering
from backache. It was stated that before that, he had returned from
USA in the month of June, 1992 after obtaining degree in Business
Management. He died on 29th August, 1992 in the hospital itself.
For this, he attributed medical negligence.
Before filing complaint before the National Commission, the
complainant had also filed criminal complaint before the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai for the offences punishable under
Sections 304-A/201 and 203 of Indian Penal Code. That prosecution
is also pending. The Commission rejected the application by holding
that there is no universal rule of law that during the pendency of
criminal proceedings, civil proceedings must invariably be stayed.
The Commission also observed that there was unexplained delay in
moving such application at this stage and, therefore, case requires to
be decided at the earliest.
In this appeal, the Court issued notice on 7th December, 2001
and thereafter on 28th January, 2002 passed the following order:
"It is contended by Mr. Ashok Desai, learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. R.F.
Nariman, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
intervenors that some guidelines will have to be laid
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12
down which are more precise in nature with regard to
the type of cases which the Consumer Forum will not
entertain, keeping in mind the decision of this Court in
Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shanta [(1995) 6
SCC 651] in paragraph 37. List after six weeks on a
non-miscellaneous day before a Bench of Three Judges.
In the meantime, there will be no stay of proceedings."
Learned senior counsel Mr. Nariman first submitted that
considering - (a) the inordinate delay in disposal of the complaint, (b)
complicated question of law and facts involved in this case
depending upon medical experts opinion summary procedure is not
proper remedy for deciding such issues, hence complainant should be
directed to approach the Civil Court.
Reasons for delay as submitted by the Learned Counsel
for the parties:
a) Delay in making appointment of the Chairman and
Members of the Forum or Commission including
National Commission;
b) Not providing adequate infrastructure;
c) Delay because of heavy workload and there is only one
Bench of the National Commission or the State
Commissions for deciding complaints;
d) Delay in procedure;
Before dealing with reasons for delay, the first question which
requires consideration is whether delay in disposal of cases by the
Consumer Forum or Commission would be a ground for directing the
complainant to approach Civil Court?
In the present case, there is inordinate delay of about nine
years in disposal of complaint. However, if this contention raised by
the learned counsel for the appellants is accepted, apart from the fact
that it would be unjust, the whole purpose and object of enacting the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ’Act’)
would be frustrated. One of the main objects of the Act is to provide
speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes and for that a
quasi-judicial machinery is sought to be set up at the district, State
and Central level. These quasi-judicial bodies are required to observe
the principles of natural justice and have been empowered to give
relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever appropriate,
compensation to consumers. Penalties for non-compliance of the
orders given by the quasi-judicial bodies have also been provided.
The object and purpose of enacting the Act is to render simple,
inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers with complaints
against defective goods and deficient services and the benevolent
piece of legislation intended to protect a large body of consumers
from exploitation would be defeated. Prior to the Act, consumers
were required to approach the Civil Court for securing justice for the
wrong done to them and it is known fact that decision in suit takes
years. Under the Act, consumers are provided with an alternative,
efficacious and speedy remedy. As such, the Consumer forum is an
alternative forum established under the Act to discharge the functions
of a Civil Court. Therefore, delay in disposal of the complaint would
not be a ground for rejecting the complaint and directing the
complainant to approach the Civil Court.
Further, while rejecting the similar contention where the
complainant was directed to approach State Commission or District
Forum, this Court in Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12
Others [(2000) 7 SCC 668] observed that appellant ought not to have
been condemned unheard after waiting for six long years; the
legislative intent, for enacting the legislation, of a speedy summary
trial, to settle the claim of the complainant (consumers) has been
respected in breach. The spirit of the benevolent legislation has been
overlooked and its object frustrated by non-suiting the appellant in
the manner in which it has been done by the National Consumer
Forum. It was further observed that "the Consumer Forums must
take expeditious steps to deal with the complaints filed before them
and not keep them pending for years. It would defeat the object of
the Act, if summary trials are not disposed of expeditiously by the
forums at the District, State or National levels. Steps in this direction
are required to be taken in the right earnest".
Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that the
present case involves complicated question of facts for which experts
including doctors would be required to be examined and their cross-
examination may be necessary, therefore also, the National
Commission ought to have directed the complainant to approach the
Civil Court. For this purpose, the reliance is placed upon the
decision of this Court in Indian Medical Association v. V.P.
Shantha and others [(1995) 6 SCC 651 para 37] and it is submitted
that in the present case complicated question of fact involving
negligence of doctors is to be decided and, therefore, complainant
should be directed to approach the Civil Court. In the aforesaid case,
the Court rejected the said contention and observed thus:
"..It has been urged that proceedings involving
negligence in the matter of rendering services by a
medical practitioner would raise complicated questions
requiring evidence of experts to be recorded and that the
procedure which is followed for determination of
consumer disputes under the Act is summary in nature
involving trial on the basis of affidavits and is not
suitable for determination of complicated questions. It is
no doubt true that sometimes complicated questions
requiring recording of evidence of experts may arise in
a complaint about deficiency in service based on the
ground of negligence in rendering medical services by a
medical practitioner; but this would not be so in all
complaints about deficiency in rendering services by a
medical practitioner. There may be cases which do not
raise such complicated questions and the deficiency in
service may be due to obvious faults which can be easily
established such as removal of the wrong limb or the
performance of an operation on the wrong patient or
giving injection of a drug to which the patient is allergic
without looking into the out-patient card containing the
warning {as in Chin Keow v. Govt. of Malaysia [(1967)
1 WLR 813 (PC)]} or use of wrong gas during the course
of an anaesthetic or leaving inside the patient swabs or
other items of operating equipment after surgery. One
often reads about such incidents in the newspapers. The
issues arising in the complaints in such cases can be
speedily disposed of by the procedure that is being
followed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies
and there is no reason why complaints regarding
deficiency in service in such cases should not be
adjudicated by the Agencies under the Act. In
complaints involving complicated issues requiring
recording of evidence of experts, the complainant can be
asked to approach the civil court for appropriate relief.
Section 3 of the Act which prescribes that the provisions
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12
of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of
the provisions of any other law for the time being in
force, preserves the right of the consumer to approach the
civil court for necessary relief. We are, therefore, unable
to hold that on the ground of composition of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies or on the ground
of the procedure which is followed by the said Agencies
for determining the issues arising before them, the
service rendered by the medical practitioners are not
intended to be included in the expression ’service’ as
defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.."
In the aforesaid case, the Court was dealing with a contention
that services rendered by the medical practitioners are not intended to
be included in the expression "service" as defined in Section 2(1)(o)
of the Act. That contention was negatived by the Court. Further
from this decision, it is apparent that it is within the discretion of the
Commission to ask the complainant to approach the civil court for
appropriate relief in case complaint involves complicated issues
requiring recording of evidence of experts, which may delay the
proceeding. But the court has specifically held that issues arising in
the complaints in such cases can be speedily disposed of by the
procedure that is being followed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal
Agencies.
Further, under the Act the National Commission is required to
be headed by a retired Judge of this Court and the State Commission
is required to be headed by a retired High Court Judge. They are
competent to decide complicated issues of law or facts. Hence, it
would not be proper to hold that in cases where negligence of experts
is alleged, consumers should be directed to approach the Civil Court.
It was next contended that such complicated questions of facts
cannot be decided in summary proceedings. In our view, this
submission also requires to be rejected because under the Act, for
summary or speedy trial, exhaustive procedure in conformity with the
principles of natural justice is provided. Therefore, merely because it
is mentioned that Commission or Forum is required to have summary
trial would hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to approach
the Civil Court. For trial to be just and reasonable long drawn
delayed procedure, giving ample opportunity to the litigant to harass
the aggrieved other side, is not necessary. It should be kept in mind
that legislature has provided alternative, efficacious, simple,
inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers and that should not
be curtailed on such ground. It would also be totally wrong
assumption that because summary trial is provided, justice cannot be
done when some questions of facts are required to be dealt with or
decided. The Act provides sufficient safeguards. For this purpose,
we would refer to the procedure prescribed under the Act for disposal
of the complaint.
"13. Procedure on receipt of complaint(1) The
District Forum shall, on receipt of a complaint, if it
relates to any goods,
(a) refer a copy of the complaint to the opposite
party mentioned in the complaint directing
him to give his version of the case within a
period of thirty days or such extended period
not exceeding fifteen days as may be
granted by the District Forum;
(b) where the opposite party on receipt of a
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12
complaint referred to him under clause (a)
denies or disputes the allegations contained
in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any
action to represent his case within the time
given by the District Forum, the District
Forum shall proceed to settle the consumer
dispute in the manner specified in clauses
(c) to (g);
(c) to (g) .
(2) the District Forum shall, if the complaint
received by it under section 12 relates to goods in respect
of which the procedure specified in sub-section (1)
cannot be followed, or if the complaint relates to any
services,
(a) refer a copy of such complaint to the
opposite party directing him to give his
version of the case within a period of thirty
days or such extended period not exceeding
fifteen days as may be granted by the
District Forum;
(b) where the opposite party, on receipt of a
copy of the complaint, referred to him under
clause (a) denies or disputes the allegations
contained in the complaint, or omits or fails
to take any action to represent his case
within the time given by the District forum,
the District Forum shall proceed to settle the
consumer dispute,
(i) on the basis of evidence brought to its
notice by the complainant and the
opposite party, where the opposite
party denies or disputes the
allegations contained in the
complaint, or
(ii) on the basis of evidence brought to its
notice by the complainant where the
opposite party omits or fails to take
any action to represent his case within
the time given by the Forum.
(3) No proceedings complying with the
procedure laid down in sub-sections (1) and (2)
shall be called in question in any court on the
ground that principles of natural justice have not
been complied with.
(4) For the purposes of this section, the
District Forum shall have the same powers as are
vested in a civil court under Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit in respect of
the following matters, namely:
(i) the summoning and enforcing the
attendance of any defendant or
witness and examining the witness
on oath;
(ii) the discovery and production of any
document or other material object
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12
producible as evidence;
(iii) the reception of evidence on
affidavits;
(iv) the requisitioning of the report of the
concerned analysis or test from the
appropriate laboratory or from any
other relevant source;
(v) issuing of any commission for the
examination of any witness; and
(vi) any other matter which may be
prescribed."
The National Commission or the State Commission is
empowered to follow the said procedure. From the aforesaid Section
it is apparent that on receipt of the complaint, the opposite party is
required to be given notice directing him to give his version of the
case within a period of 30-days or such extended period not
exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District Forum or the
Commission. For having speedy trial, this legislative mandate of not
giving more than 45 days in submitting the written statement or the
version of the case is required to be adhered. If this is not adhered,
the legislative mandate of disposing of the cases within three or five
months would be defeated.
For this purpose, even the Parliament has amended Order VIII
Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, which reads thus:
"Rule-1: Written statement.The defendant
shall, within thirty days from the date of service of
summons on him, present a written statement of his
defence :
Provided that where the defendant fails to file the
written statement within the said period of thirty days, he
shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as
may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded
in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days
from the date of service of summons."
Under this Rule also, there is a legislative mandate that written
statement of defence is to be filed within 30 days. However, if there
is a failure to file such written statement within stipulated time, the
court can at the most extend further period of 60 days and no more.
Under the Act, the legislative intent is not to give 90 days of time but
only maximum 45 days for filing the version by the opposite party.
Therefore, the aforesaid mandate is required to be strictly adhered to.
Further, under Section 13(4) of the Act, the Commission or the
Forum is empowered to exercise the powers vested in Civil Court for
discovery and production of any document, the reception of evidence
on affidavit and of issuing of any commission qua examination of
any witness.
In view of the aforesaid provisions, the Commission can
certainly refer to Order VII Rule 14 which provides that where a
plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12
possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such
documents in a list, and shall produce it in the Court when the plaint
is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document
and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. It appears that this
mandatory requirement is not followed and thereafter, there is
complaint of delay in disposal. Similarly, in case of written
statement under Order VIII Rule I-A, defendant is required to
produce the documents relied upon by him when written submission
is presented. The Commission can always insist on production of all
documents relied upon by the parties along with the complaint and
the defence version.
Further, in the present case, the complainant’s case is based
upon the negligence of the Doctors in giving treatment to the
deceased. Whether there was negligence or not on the part of the
concerned Doctors would depend upon facts alleged to and in such a
case there is no question of complicated question of law involved.
However, it has been pointed out by the learned senior counsel
that recording of evidence of experts including doctors relied
upon by the complainant would consume much time and
therefore also complainant should approach the Civil Court. As
against this, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that under
the Act, Commission is required to follow summary procedure. It
may or may not examine the doctors or experts. It may only rely
upon the statements given by such doctors or experts.
It is true that it is the discretion of the Commission to examine
the experts if required in appropriate matter. It is equally true that in
cases where it is deemed fit to examine experts, recording of
evidence before a Commission may consume time. The Act
specifically empowers the Consumer Forums to follow the procedure
which may not require more time or delay the proceedings. Only
caution required is to follow the said procedure strictly. Under the
Act, while trying a complaint, evidence could be taken on affidavits
[under Section 13(4)(iii)]. It also empowers such Forums to issue
any Commission for examination of any witness [under Section
13(4)(v)]. It is also to be stated that Rule 4 in Order XVIII of C.P.C.
is substituted which inter alia provides that in every case, the
examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit and copies
thereof shall be supplied to the opposite party by the party who calls
him for evidence. It also provides that witnesses could be examined
by the Court or the Commissioner appointed by it. As stated above,
the Commission is also empowered to follow the said procedure.
Hence, we do not think that there is any scope of delay in
examination or cross-examination of the witnesses. The affidavits of
the experts including the doctors can be taken as evidence.
Thereafter, if cross-examination is sought for by the other side and
the Commission finds it proper, it can easily evolve a procedure
permitting the party who intends to cross-examine by putting certain
questions in writing and those questions also could be replied by such
experts including doctors on affidavits. In case where stakes are very
high and still party intends to cross-examine such doctors or experts,
there can be video conferences or asking questions by arranging
telephone conference and at the initial stage this cost should be borne
by the person who claims such video conference. Further, cross-
examination can be taken by the Commissioner appointed by it at the
working place of such experts at a fixed time.
In any case, for avoiding the delay the District Forum or
Commissions can evolve a procedure of levying heavy cost where
adjournment is sought by a party on one or the other ground. This
would have its own impact on disposing the complaints, appeals or
revisions within the stipulated or reasonable time. For avoiding delay
in disposal of cases, the procedure and the time limit prescribed
under the Act and the Rules is required to be strictly adhered and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12
followed. If there is proper mind set to do so on the part of all
concerned, delay in disposal to a large extent could be avoided.
Learned senior counsel Mr. Nariman and Mr. Chatterjee and
Mr. Lalit (Amicus Curiae) submitted that despite various directions
given by this Court including the decision given in Charan Singh’s
case (Supra), the District Forums, State Commissions and National
Commission remain flooded with number of complaints, appeals and
revisions and arrears is mounting. For delay, they unanimously
submitted that after enactment of the Act, appropriate steps are not
taken by the Government for ensuring that the National Commission
as well as State Forums can function properly. It is submitted that
even if one Member is appointed, other members of the Forum are
not appointed. It is also pointed out that on occasions there is no
simultaneous appointment of the Members of the Forum or the
President so as to make it functional. In most of the cases, it is their
submission that even after appointment of the members, the forum is
not provided with necessary building and infrastructure.
It is also pointed out that before the National Commission, as
on 1st April 2002, 7582 matters were pending, which consisted of
1495 original petitions, 2330 first appeals and 3757 revision
petitions. It is true that for disposal of these many matters in a
stipulated time limit as prescribed under the Act or the Rules, one
Bench may not be in a position to cope up with the work.
For reducing the arrears and for seeing that complaints, appeals
and revisions are decided speedily and within stipulated time, we
hope that President of National Commission would draw the
attention of the Government for taking appropriate actions within
stipulated time and see that object and purpose of the Act is not
frustrated.
Further, National Commission has administrative control over
the State Commissions and District Forums as provided under
Section 24-B, which reads thus:
"24B. Administrative Control.(1) The National
Commission shall have administrative control over all the
State Commissions in the following matters, namely
(i) calling for periodical return regarding the
institution, disposal pendency of cases;
(ii) issuance of instructions regarding adoption
of uniform procedure in the hearing of
matters, prior service of copies of
documents produced by one party to the
opposite parties, furnishing of English
translation of judgments written in any
language, speedy grant of copies of
documents;
(iii) generally overseeing the functioning of the
State Commissions or the District Fora to
ensure that the objects and purposes of the
Act are best served without in any way
interfering with their quasi-judicial freedom.
(2) The State Commission shall have administrative
control over all the District Fora within its jurisdiction in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12
all matters referred to in sub-section (1)."
It can be hoped that the National Commission would ensure its
best to see that District Forums, State Commissions and National
Commission can discharge its functions as efficiently and speedily as
contemplated by the provisions of the Act. The National
Commission has administrative control over all the State
Commissions inter alia for issuing of instructions regarding adoption
of uniform procedure in hearing of the matters etc. It would have
also administrative control in overseeing that the functions of the
State Commissions or District Forums are discharged in furtherance
of objects and purposes of the Act in the best manner.
It is to be stated that the grievances of the learned counsel for
the parties is sought to be taken care by the proposed amendment in
the Legislation. For this, we would refer to the Consumer Protection
(Amendment) Bill, 2002, which was introduced in Rajya Sabha and
was passed on 11th March, 2002. The statement of objects and
reasons of the said Bill reads thus:
"The enactment of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 was an important milestone in the history of the
consumer movement in the country. The Act was made
to provide for the better protection and promotion of
consumer rights through the establishment of Consumer
Councils and quasi-judicial machinery. Under the Act,
consumer disputes redressal agencies have been set up
throughout the country with the District Forum at the
district level, State Commission at the State level and
National Commission at the National level to provide
simple, inexpensive and speedy justice to the consumers
with complaints against defective goods, deficient
services and unfair and restrictive trade practices. The
Act was also amended in the years 1991 and 1993 to
make it more effective and purposeful.
2. Although the consumer disputes redressal
agencies have to a considerable extent, served the
purpose for which they were created, the disposal of
cases has not been fast enough. Several bottlenecks and
shortcomings have also come to light in the
implementation of various provisions of the Act. With a
view to achieving quicker disposal of consumer
complaints by the consumer disputes redressal agencies
securing effective implementation of their orders,
widening the scope of some of the provisions of the Act
to make it more effective, removing various lacunae in
the Act and streamlining the procedures, amendments are
proposed in the Act, which inter alia, include the
following, namely:
(i) exclusion of the jurisdiction of the consumer
disputes redressal Agencies in respect of
claims for which corresponding provisions
in the special laws exist for the protection of
interests of consumers;
(ii) provisions for creation of Benches of the
National Commission and State
Commissions as well as holding of circuit
benches of these Commissions;
(iii) prescribing the period within which
complaints are to be admitted, notices are to
be issued to opposite party and the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12
complaints are to be decided. Similar
provisions have been proposed also in
respect of appeals;
(iv) no adjournment to be ordinarily allowed and
allowed where, a speaking order giving
reasons would be made.
(v) . (xvii) "
Further proposed amendments inter alia provides that after sub-
section (1) of Section 20, sub-section (1A)(i) and (ii) shall be
inserted, which reads thus:
"(1A)(i) The jurisdiction, powers and authority
of the National Commission may be exercised by
Benches thereof.
(ii) A Bench may be constituted by the
President with one or more members as the President
may deem fit."
Similar provision is introduced for the State Commission by
inserting sub-section (1B)(i) and (ii) after sub-section (1) of Section
16, which reads thus:
"(1B)(i) The jurisdiction, powers and authority
of the State Commission may be exercised by Benches
thereof.
(ii) A Bench may be constituted by the
President with one or more members as the President
may deem fit."
Therefore, the President of the National Commission or the
State Commission would have power to form the Benches for
disposal of the pending cases. It would certainly depend upon the
workload and the time frame contemplated under the Act for disposal
of such cases.
Proposed Bill also envisages insertion of Sub-section 3A in
Section 13 of the Act, which reads as under:
"(3A) Every complaint shall be heard as
expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made
to decide the complaint within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of notice by opposite
party where the complaint does not require analysis or
testing of commodities and within five months if it
requires analysis or testing of commodities:
Provided that no adjournment shall be ordinarily
granted by the District Forum unless sufficient cause is
shown and the reasons for grant of adjournment have
been recorded in writing by the Forum:
Provided further that the District Forum shall
make such orders as to the costs occasioned by the
adjournment as may be provided in the regulations
made under this Act."
From the wording of the aforesaid Section, it is apparent that
there is legislative mandate to the District Forum or the Commissions
to dispose of the complaints as far as possible within prescribed time
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12
of three months by adhering strictly to the procedure prescribed
under the Act. The opposite party has to submit its version within 30
days from the date of the receipt of the complaint by him and
Commission can give at the most further 15 days for some
unavoidable reasons to file its version.
Learned counsel for the parties submitted that in the present
case, there is a delay of more than nine years in disposal of the
complaint. For that purpose, they made a grievance that matters are
repeatedly adjourned on one or other ground without following the
procedure prescribed under Section 13 of the Act and Rule 14 of the
Consumer Protection Rules. The proposed amendment also requires
that no adjournment shall ordinarily be granted and in any case if
adjournment is required to be granted, reasons for the same are
required to be recorded. Further, to discourage granting of repeated
adjournments, if National Commission frames necessary regulations
heavy cost could be awarded. There is also proposal to add Section
12(3), which reads thus
"12(3) On receipt of a complaint made under sub-
section (1), the District Forum may, by order, allow the
complaint to be proceeded with or rejected:
Provided that a complaint shall not be rejected
under this sub-section unless an opportunity of being
heard has been given to the complainant:
Provided further that the admissibility of the
complaint shall ordinarily be decided within twenty-one
days from the date on which the complaint was
received."
It is apparent that the aforesaid proposed amendment in the Act
mandates the District Forum or the Commission to decide the
admissibility of the complaint within 21 days from the date on which
the complaint was received by it. This procedure is required to be
adhered so that after lapse of some time, objection with regard to
maintainability of the complaint is not required to be decided.
Other proposed amendments, such as, Sections 22C and 22D,
which deal with Circuit Benches and filling up of vacancies in the
office of President of District Forum, State Commission or of the
National Commission, as the case may be, is not required to be
referred to. However, we would mention that Section 30A, which is
proposed to be inserted, empowers the Commission to frame
regulations with the approval of the Central Government and sub-
section (2) empowers the Commission to frame regulations for
making provisions for the cost of adjournment of any proceeding
before the District Forum, the State Commission or the National
Commission.
From the proposed amendment in the Act, it is apparent that
Parliament is alive to the problems faced by the consumers and the
consumer forums and, therefore, further directions are not required to
be given.
However, apart from the contemplated legislative action, it is
expected that the Government would also take appropriate steps in
providing proper infrastructure so that the Act is properly
implemented and the legislative purpose of providing alternative,
efficacious, speedy, inexpensive remedy to the consumers is not
defeated or frustrated.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12
Similar action is also expected from the National Commission
as well as State Commissions. Hence, for avoiding delay in disposal
of complaints within prescribed period, National Commission is
required to take appropriate steps including:
(a) By exercise of Administrative control, it can be seen that
competent persons are appointed as Members on all
levels so that there may not be any delay in composition
of the Forum or the Commission for want of Members;
(b) It would oversee that time limit prescribed for filing
defence version and disposal of complaints is strictly
adhered to;
(c) It would see that complaint as well as defence version
should be accompanied by documents and affidavits
upon which parties intend to rely;
(d) In cases where cross-examination of the persons who
have filed affidavits is necessary, suggested questions of
cross-examination be given to the persons who have
tendered their affidavits and reply may be also on
affidavits;
(e) In cases where Commission deems it fit to cross-
examine the witnesses in person, video conference or
telephonic conference at the cost of person who so
applies could be arranged or cross-examination could be
through a Commission. This procedure would be
helpful in cross-examination of experts, such as,
Doctors.
In the result, with the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. IA Nos.1 to 4 do not
require any further consideration and stand disposed of accordingly.
Before parting with the judgment, we would appreciate the
assistance rendered by the learned counsel for the parties and Amicus
Curiae.