JURISDICTION OF CONSUMER FORUM TO ALLOW AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT

 

Manimalan V/s  K.  Subrayan AIR 2004 Mad 446 read with Canara Bank v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., & Ors., J.T.1995, (3) SC 42, and Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K.Gupta, JT 1993(6) SC 307 = 1994 (1) SCC 243

The Supreme Court had also taken into consideration the various other cases namely, Canara Bank v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., & Ors., J.T.1995, (3) SC 42, and Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K.Gupta, JT 1993(6) SC 307 = 1994 (1) SCC 243 and ultimately held that the power of the District Forum is wide enough to use even to application for filing an amendment and as a matter of fact by allowing such an amendment, no prejudice has been complied of and in that view of the matter also, I do not find any impediment in entertaining an application for the amendment, even though there is no specific provision for amendment. As it has been rightly submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondent, though there is no specific provision, there is also no bar in allowing this petition and that therefore, I do not find any error in the said order passed by the District Forum.

 

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. M.K.GUPTA

In absence of any indication, express or implied there is no reason to hold that authorities created by the statute are beyond purview of the Act.- ,

 A legislation which is enacted to protect public interest from undesirable activities cannot be construed in such narrow manner as to frustrate the purpose of law

In a modem society no authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary. It is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention linger on and the man in the street is made to run from one end to other with no result. The culture of window clearance appears to be totally dead. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the system.

 Public administration, no doubt involves a vast amount of administrative discretion which shields the action of administrative authority. But where it is found that exercise of discretion was mala fide and the complainant is entitled to compensation for mental and physical harassment then the officer can no more claim to be under protective cover.

When a citizen seeks to recover compensation from a public authority in respect of injuries suffered by him for capricious exercise of power and the National Commission finds it duly proved then it has a statutory obligation to award the same. It was never more necessary than today when even social obligations are regulated by grant of statutory powers. The test of permissive form of grant is over. It is now imperative and implicit in the exercise of power that it should be for the sake of society.

 When the court directs payment of damages or compensation against the State the ultimate sufferer is the common man. It is the tax payers' money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law. It is, therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing it proportionately

                                                            -------

 

Previous

Next