Supreme Court: Workers who are beneficiary of government schemes are a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act

 The expression ‘service’ has been defined in the widest possible terms to mean ‘service of any description which is made available to potential users’. The exception in Section 2(1)(o) is a service which is rendered free of

charge. The workers who are registered under the provisions of the Act of 1996 are beneficiaries of the schemes made by the Board. Upon registration, every worker is required to make a contribution to the fund at such rate per month as may be prescribed by the State government. The fund into which the contributions by persons who are registered under the Act are remitted, comprises among other sources, the contributions made by the beneficiaries. The fund is applied inter alia for meeting the expenses incurred to fulfill the objects and purposes authorized by the legislation. In view of the statutory scheme, the services which are rendered by the Board to the beneficiaries are not services which are provided free of charge so as to constitute an exclusion from the statutory definition contained in Section 2(1)(o) and Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The true test is not whether the amount which has been contributed by the beneficiary is adequate to defray the entire cost of the expenditure envisaged under the scheme. So long as the service which has been rendered is not rendered free of charge, any deficiency of service is amenable to the fora for redressal constituted under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The Act does not require an enquiry into whether the cost of providing the service is entirely defrayed from the price which is paid for availing of the service. As we have seen from the definition contained in Section 2(1)(d), a ‘consumer’ includes not only a person who has hired or availed of service but even a beneficiary of a service. The registered workers are clearly beneficiaries of the service provided by the Board in a statutory capacity.

14 As a matter of interpretation, the provisions contained in the Consumer Protection Act 1986 must be construed in a purposive manner. Parliament has provided a salutary

remedy to consumers of both goods and services. Public authorities such as the appellants who have been constituted under an enactment of Parliament are entrusted with a solemn duty of providing welfare services to registered workers. The workers who are registered with the Board make contributions on the basis of which they are entitled to avail of the services provided in terms of the schemes notified by the Board. Public accountability is a significant consideration which underlies the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The evolution of jurisprudence in relation to the enactment reflects the need to ensure a sense of public accountability by allowing consumers a redressal in the context of the discharge of non-sovereign functions which are not rendered free of charge. This test is duly met in the present case.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No 2014 of 2020

The Joint Labour Commissioner Vs  Kesar Lal 

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

Dated:March 17, 2020.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Government servant can not raise dispute about his service conditions or for service benefits before consumer forum

After considering relevant cases on the point, this Court

concluded as under:

“20. In view of the above, it is evident that by no

stretch of imagination can a government servant raise

any dispute regarding his service conditions or for

payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral

benefits before any of the forum under the Act. The

government servant does not fall under the definition

of a “consumer” as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii)

of the Act. Such government servant is entitled to

claim his retiral benefits strictly in accordance

with his service conditions and regulations or

statutory rules framed for that purpose. The

appropriate forum, for redressal of any of his

grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal,

if any, or the civil court but certainly not a forum

under the Act.

21. In view of the above, we hold that the government

servant cannot approach any of the forum under the

Act for any of the retiral benefits.”

The decision of this Court rendered in Jagmittar Sain

Bhagat was holding the field when the matter was decided by

the State Commission and the National Commission. A plea was

squarely raised by the appellants about the inapplicability of

the provisions of the Act. However, that plea was not gone

into.

In keeping with the principles laid down by this Court in

the case of Jagmittar Sain Bhagat, we hold that the complaint

in the present case was not maintainable before the District

Forum under the provisions of the Act.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL N O.8472 OF 2019

MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES  Vs  SHREEPAT RAO KAMDE 

UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
Dated:NOVEMBER 06, 2019

Print Page

Whether Consumer Forum Has Jurisdiction To Adjudicate Dispute Concerning Validity Of Statutory Due Arising Out Of Deficiency In Service?

We may also refer to the case of Ghaziabad Development
Authority (supra) wherein this Court, relying upon Lucknow
Development Authority case (supra), held that the power of the
Consumer forum extends to redressing any injustice rendered upon
a consumer as well as over any mala fide, capricious or any
oppressive act done by a statutory body. The relevant para of the
judgment reads as under:

“6. ….Thus, the law is that the Consumer
Protection Act has a wide reach and the
Commission has jurisdiction even in cases of
service rendered by statutory and public
authorities. Such authorities become liable to
compensate for misfeasance in public office i.e. an
act which is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary
or negligent provided loss or injury is suffered by
a citizen.
…
Where there has been capricious or arbitrary
or negligent exercise or nonexercise
of power
by an officer of the authority, the
Commission/Forum has a statutory obligation
to award compensation. If the
Commission/Forum is satisfied that a
complainant is entitled to compensation for
loss or injury or for harassment or mental
agony or oppression, then after recording a
finding it must direct the authority to pay
compensation and then also direct recovery
from those found responsible for such
unpardonable behaviour.
(emphasis supplied)
22. Therefore, in line with the law laid down by us, we hold that the
determination of the dispute concerning the validity of the
imposition of a statutory due arising out of a “deficiency in service”,
can be undertaken by the consumer fora as per the provisions of
the Act. The decision of this Court in the case of Sunita (supra),
wherein it was held that NCDRC has no jurisdiction to adjudicate
the legitimacy of the aforementioned statutory dues, was rendered

without considering any of the previous judgments of this Court
and the objects of the Act. Consequently, the law laid down in the
aforesaid case does not hold good before the eyes of law, and is
thereby overruled.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SLP (C ) NO. 4272 OF 2015

PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOW GLADA) Vs VIDYA CHETAL

N.V. RAMANA, J.
Dated:SEPTEMBER 16, 2019.

Print Page

Whether Second Complaint to Consumer forum is maintainable?

These Rules do not provide that if
a complaint is dismissed in default by the
District Forum under Rule 4(8) or by the State
Commission under Rule 8(8) of the Rules, a
second complaint would not lie. Thus, there is
no provision parallel to the provision
contained in Order 9 Rule 9(1) CPC which
contains a prohibition that if a suit is
dismissed in default of the plaintiff under
Order 9 Rule 8, a second suit on the same cause
of action would not lie. That being so, the
rule of prohibition contained in Order 9 Rule
9(1) CPC cannot be extended to the proceedings
before the District Forum or the State
Commission. The fact that the case was not
decided on merits and was dismissed in default
of non-appearance of the complainant cannot be
overlooked and, therefore, it would be
permissible to file a second complaint
explaining why the earlier complaint could not
be pursued and was dismissed in default.”
We have also not been shown any rule similar to Order
IX, Rule 9(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. That
being so, and in view of the decision rendered by this
Court, with which we have no reason to disagree, we are
of the opinion that the second complaint filed by the
appellant was maintainable on the facts of this case.
Under the circumstances, we set aside the order
passed by the National Commission and remit the matter
back to the National Commission for adjudicating the
disputes on merits.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.557 OF 2016

INDIAN MACHINERY COMPANY V M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD.
Dated:JANUARY 27, 2016

Print Page

When consumer forum can not take action for non compliance of its order?

The facts stated earlier would clearly show that the decree dated 17/01/2007 had been rendered inexecutable in the instant case. As a matter of record, I must say, in the earlier round of litigation being Writ Petition No. 4004/2012, this Court while dismissing the writ petition filed by the present petitioner against the respondent by the order dated 17/12/2012 observed that the order dated 17/01/2007 was so clear as to obviate the need for seeking an additional order of rescinding the decree dated 17/01/2007. These observations clearly implied that the decree dated 17/01/2007 after the expiry of period of 30 days from the date of the decree had been rendered inexecutable. Precisely, that was the reason why it was observed that there was no need for the petitioner to seek any order for recalling or rescinding the order or decree dated 17/01/2007 on account of non-payment of the balance consideration amount within the stipulated time by the respondent.

8. Once it is found that the decree dated 17/01/2007 had been rendered inexecutable, the only conclusion that is possible would be that no offence is constituted, there being no obligation remaining on the part of the petitioner to be discharged under the law. The learned Members of the Consumer Forum have not considered this fundamental aspect of the whole matter and the result is of passing of an illegal and arbitrary order. The order impugned in this petition cannot be sustained in law. It must go and so the proceedings initiated under the provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Writ Petition No. 742 of 2015

Decided On: 16.08.2016

Aditya Developers

Vs.

 Manish Ranganath Thorat

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Shukre, J.

Citation: 2017 ALLMR(CRI) 1551

Print Page

NCDRC directed bank to pay compensation of Rs fifty thousand for delay in processing of cheque

Having heard Learned counsel for the Petitioner and the Complainant, who is on caveat, we are of the view that the Revision Petition is without any substance. On appraisal of the evidence adduced by the parties, particularly the pay-in-slip, both the Fora below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the Petitioner had failed to substantiate its stand that the delay in credit of the said amount was because of the reason that the Complainant had failed to mention the Account Number and the account holder's name on the pay-in-slip, at the time of deposit of the cheque. Both the Forums have rejected the stand of the Petitioner that the said particulars were filled up later. The said finding having not been specifically challenged as being perverse, we do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order, warranting our interference in Revisional jurisdiction, more so when the total amount involved in the case is a meagre sum of 50,000/-, which includes the litigation cost.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi

(Before D.K. Jain, President and M. Shreesha, Member)

Indian Overseas Bank

V

 R.K. Sharma 

Revision Petition No. 3414 of 2016

Decided on January 2, 2017

Citation: 2017 SCC OnLine NCDRC 2

Print Page

NCDRC:Tata Motors Ltd. is vicariously liable for the omissions and commissions of their dealer

The Tata Motors Ltd. is vicariously liable for the omissions and commissions of their dealer. They cannot permit their dealers to indulge in such like activities who work under their nose. It is their bounden duty to check the names of the customers particularly when it is called to change the most significant part like engine. However, it is made clear that it is the main responsibility of the dealer itself. The dealer should not have sold this vehicle for the second time. He has tried to suppress the facts. He should have mentioned all these facts to the new purchaser and should have given concession for the same. The fact that the vehicle has run upto 14,173 kms. and 19,960 kms. on 06-06-2006 pales into insignificance in view of the cheating committed by the dealer with the consumer. The action of both the parties is below the belt. They made an attempt to lead the gullible customer up the garden path. The consumer swallowed the bait and drove the car to such an extent without knowing that it is a second hand car. However, the liability upon the Tata Motors Ltd. is on the lower/nominal side. The entire amount of the car as well as compensation and interest as ordered by the fora below would be paid by the Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. the dealer. However, watching the inaction, negligence and passivity on the part of the Tata Motors Ltd. we impose costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- upon Tata Motors Ltd. which be paid to the complainant within 45 days from today otherwise it will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The rest of the liability lies on the Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. After the receipt of the amount the vehicle be returned to the dealer immediately.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI

Revision Petition No. 2179 of 2014

Decided On: 18.04.2016

Tata Motors Ltd. Vs.  Prashantbhai Premshankar Vyas and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:J.M. Malik, J. (Presiding Member)

Print Page

Lawyers not liable under consumer Act: SC

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a ruling of the apex consumer forum holding that services rendered by an advocate to his client in the course of litigation be covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. 

A Bench comprising Justices L S Panta and B Sudershan Reddy stayed the ruling of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which was challenged by a large number of advocate bodies after lawyers raised a hue and cry over the prospect of being sued by clients for deficient service. 

Print Page

Judgments on consumer law

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5vWGtQ14k1Bb2N0M0NaZ0lhRGM/view?usp=sharing

Print Page

Whether compensation can be granted to consumer on mere proof of “unfair trade practice” even though there is no loss to him?

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1) (r) - “unfair trade practice” - definition of - Mere proof of “unfair trade practice” is not enough for claim or award of relief unless causing of loss is also established.

   REPORTABLE

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

   CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8072-8073  OF 2009

GENERAL MOTORS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED    Vs  ASHOK RAMNIK LAL TOLAT       

Dated: October 9, 2014

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

Print Page

Whether motor vehicle Act will prevail over consumer protection Act ?

While holding that Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain complaint arising out of fatal accident while travelling in vehicle, NCDRC allowed a revision petition filed by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. challenging the order of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. Earlier a complaint before Consumer Forum was filed by complainant whose father while travelling in bus of Rajasthan SRTC met with an accident and on account of injuries, died. Though a complaint claim petition was pending before MACT, Sikar, District Forum granted compensation and its appeal before State Commission was dismissed. In revision Rajasthan SRTC prayed for relief and contended that it has neither charged any amount for insurance from complainant nor Consumer Fora had jurisdiction to decide complaint. NCDRC, in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in Thiruvalluvar Transport Corpn. v. Consumer Protection Council, (1995) 2 SCC 479 reiterated that Claim Tribunal constituted for the area under Motor Vehicle Act had jurisdiction to entertain any claim for compensation arising out of the fatal accident and as Consumer Protection Act is a general law, it must yield to the special law. 

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                                                NEW DELHI       

REVISION PETITION NO. 2843 OF 2012

 (From the order dated 11.04.2012 in Appeal No. 96 of 2012 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur)

 Manager,

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation,

Beawar, Ajmer

 Versus

Mr. Kuldeep Singh S/o Late Sh. Amarjeet Singh

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI,  PRESIDING MEMBER      HON’BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

                             

PRONOUNCED ON   9^th May,  2014

 

Print Page