By I C Naik
Not many members of cooperative societies were aware that District Consumer Forum is a speedier and economical source of redressal of their grievances. These Fora provide speedy justice within a time bound period. The Act prescribes a period of 30 days for Opposite Party for filing a reply, with the leeway of one extension of 15 days.
The Consumer fora is shredding its liberal stance in granting extension upon extension to permit opponents to file their reply to the complaint “in the interest of justice”.
In one recent case Kanan Kintwear filed a complaint against Tata AIG before the Maharashtra State Commission. The insurance company failed to file its reply within 45 days. When after this time limit Tata’s advocate filed his vakala tnama, and sought extension of time to file a reply the State Commission refused to grant further time and held that the opponent’s right to file its reply stood forfeited.
In a revision petition before the National Commission Tata argued that there were several judgments under the Civil Procedure Code where it had been held that there could be a number of genuine reasons for the inability to file a reply within the statutory period, and that in such cases the court could grant extension of time.
Rejecting this argument, the National Commission refused to accept that extension of time was a matter of right. The time schedule has been stipulated by law had to be followed. Deviation could be by way of an extreme exception. The court would grant extension only if it was satisfied that the reasons given were exceptional, genuine and beyond the control of the opponents. Extension may not be free of costs.
The National Commission recalled a direct judgment of the Supreme Court in respect of proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, where a 3-judge bench, in Dr J J Merchant v/s Srinath Chaturvedi, had held that the mandate of the law requiring the reply to be filed within a particular time frame must be strictly adhered to.
The National Commission upheld the order of the State Commission to proceed with the adjudication of the complaint without allowing Tata to file its reply. (Bench of Justice S M Malik and Dr S M Kantikar.) Impact:
In yet another case against Eureka forbes a company belonging to a mighty group Shapoorji Pallonji was asked to cough up `18,590 for providing faulty water filter.
Apart from the main compensatory amount, the forum has asked Eureka Forbes to cough up Rs10,000 for the complainant’s legal expenses and the mental agony he was subjected to.
Reportedly one Mr. Digambar Dhande, had approached the firm for installing a water purifier at his Dadar residence in May 2012. One of the firm’s employees had accordingly visited Dhande’s house and advised him to get the AG Booster (water filter-cum-purifier). AG Booster was installed on July 17, 2012. According to a copy of his complaint, “The machine worked properly for the initial three months and later it broke down in October 2012.”
Dhande lodged a complaint about it with the firm, which then sent a technician to Dhande’s residence to fix the problem. The technician was unable to trace the problem and advised Dhande to register a complaint with the firm’s Bangalore toll-free number. Meanwhile, the firm deputed more technicians to fix the problem, but nobody was able to solve the issue.
Eureka Forbes even turned their back on the offer to replace the faulty purifier with a new one. This was when Dhande decided to send a legal notice to the firm for failing to provide the required services, but the firm turned a blind eye towards the notice. Aggrieved by this behavior, the complainant finally approached the redressal forum, filing a complaint against the firm. After going through the complaint, the forum asked Eureka Forbes to file a reply on the complaint, which the firm failed to comply with.
After going through the evidence produced by Dhande, the forum held the firm responsible for discharging faulty services and directing them to pay a fine of Rs 8,590 along with an interest of 9 per cent to Dhande. It also directed the firm to pay Rs 5,000 to compensate for the complainant’s mental agony and an additional Rs 5,000 toward the complainant’s legal expenses.
In housing societies there are management mafias collecting high maintenance not attending to members’ complaints. The Speedier and easier way is to approach district consumer forum. The consumer grievance redressal committees much talked about during last few years has remained a paper exercise.
