Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2002 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2002 (8) TMI 835 - SUPREME COURTWhether delay in disposal of cases by the Consumer Forum or Commission would be a ground for directing the complainant to approach Civil Court? Whether there was negligence or not on the part of the concerned Doctors? Held that:- In the present case, there is inordinate delay of about nine years in disposal of complaint. The object and purpose of enacting the the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 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. Hence, for avoiding delay in disposal of complaints within prescribed period, National Commission is required to take appropriate steps including: 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; It would oversee that time limit prescribed for filing defence version and disposal of complaints is strictly adhered to It would see that complaint as well as defence version should be accompanied by documents and affidavits upon which parties intend to rely; 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; 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.
|