Consumer courts should not dismiss complaints merely because the issues are complex.
The difficult we do today; the impossible, tomorrow’ is the motto of heroes. But consumer forums seem to adopt the rule, ‘the simple we decide here, the difficult we pass on to the civil courts’.
Several times in the past, the National Consumer Commission has turned down the requests of petitioners who have approached it with complaints involving complex questions of facts and law. The response of the commission was to send the petitioners to the civil courts. Its stand was that consumer forums were set up to provide cheap and speedy remedy and therefore it could not take up complicated issues which require detailed examination and evidence. The forums are meant for summary disposal of complaints, obviating the compulsion to approach the civil courts, which are notorious for delays and expenses.
The Supreme Court has been equally insistent that the forums should not shirk their responsibility to hear and decide cases which demand tough home work. The latest instance was the judgement in Punj Lloyd Ltd vs Corporate Risks India Ltd. The dispute involved questions of fact relating to insurance of Punj Lloyd, which was awarded a contract in the Uran-Trombay pipeline project of ONGC. When the compny moved the National Consumer Commission, the petition was dismissed at the threshold itself with the commission, stating that the issues involved were too complicated and therefore beyond its purview.
Therefore, Punj Lloyd appealed to the Supreme Court. It argued that the commission sent it away even without hearing the opposite party. If both parties were called, the issues could have been easily sorted out. At least the commission could have made an attempt to solve the dispute. The Supreme Court found substance in this contention and remitted the case back to the commission.
“Every complaint of the consumer,” said the Supreme Court, “is related to a dispute and will raise disputed questions and contentions. If there was no dispute, there would be no complaint. Therefore, the ground for rejection of the complaint, namely, it raised ‘disputed questions and contentions’, was definitely irrelevant.”
This is not the first time that the Supreme Court had to make such observations. In a similar case, CCI Chambers Coop Housing Society Ltd vs Development Credit Bank Ltd (2003), the court stated: “It cannot be denied that the forums at the national, the state and the district level have been constituted under the Consumer Protection Act with the avowed object of providing summary and speedy remedy in conformity with the principles of natural justice, taking care of such grievances as are amenable to the jurisdiction of the forums established under the Act. These forums have been established and conferred with the jurisdiction in addition to the conventional courts. The principal object sought to be achieved by establishing such forums is to relieve the conventional courts of their burden which is ever-increasing with the mounting arrears and whereat the disposal is delayed because of the technicalities. Merely because recording of evidence is required, or some questions of fact and law arise which would need to be investigated and determined, cannot be a ground for shutting the doors of any forum under the Act to the person aggrieved."
In another case, Dr JJ Merchant vs Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002), the court explained its view thus: “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 the commission or forum is required to have summary trial, would hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to approach the civil court. For the 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 the legislature has provided alternative, efficacious, simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers and that should not be curtailed on such a ground. It would be a wrong assumption totally 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 provided sufficient safeguards.”
The National Commission is headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, the State Commissions by retired High Court judges and the District Forums by former district judges. They are not new to intricacies; in fact they take pride in cutting the Gordion knots (though some are accused of tying them). The president of the fora are also assisted by several expert members, a facility not available to judges in civil courts. Therefore, the forums should now onwards weigh the burden of work by listening to both sides before passing the buck.
