LAWS LAID DOWN DURING THE YEAR 2013-2014 BY VARIOUS COURTS 

UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

 

Consumer movement was much viberant during the year 2013-14 for many reasons.Certain judgements pronounced by the apex courts had settled the long debated issues.

A long pending dispute regarding jurisdiction of consumer forum in the electricity matters is finally settled by the Hon’ble Supreme court in this year 2013vide a detailed judgment on the issue in the matter of U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors vs Anis Ahmad on 1 July, 2013 There is series of judgments by the Hon’ble High court of Delhi that theft cases are out of the purview of the consumer court. This was reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme court in later cases .However electricity board had further raised an issue that all electricity matters should be left to the special courts and lok adalats set up by the department for electricity cases.   The reason extended for the idea is that they have now got a new electricity act which is very comprehensive and billing pattern is also very complicated. Supreme Court has now finally held in the above matter that consumer court shall have the jurisdiction to deal with electricity matter for deficiency in services in all other matters except for theft and unauthorized abstraction of electricity which is also a theft in other way. 

 

Commercial purpose had always been a grey area for the reason it has not been defined in the act in clear terms and hence discretion of the court becomes important to understand the fact and circumstances of each case. Among the frequently received cases before the consumer courts are share market cases. Apex commission while deciding the matter betweenVimal Raosaheb Chougale v Stockholding Corporation of India in the year 2013 has held that shares purchased for the purpose of running business for profit is a commercial purpose and trading with shares is out of the purview of self lively hood. Hence purchasing shares in bulk and then selling on profit does not make the purchaser a consumer.

Territorial jurisdiction is another issue on which there is a conflict between the parties when contracting parties put a special clause in their terms a specific place is chosen for settling the dispute. This clause has been found in derogation to the law laid down under section 11 of the consumer protection act. While discussing on the subject, courts are of the opinion that an act passed by the parliament will have overriding power on the wishes expressed in the contract. Hence in the matters pertaining to services under consumer protection act, territorial jurisdiction shall be decided in the way provided in the act. National commission in their order in the matter of Monto Motors Ltd v Sri Sai Motors in this year has not accepted the argument mentioning the jurisdiction at Delhi will ousted the jurisdiction of local district consumer forum at Bellary. In this case dealers showroom is at Bellary and cause of action also arises at Bellary.

 

After enactment of RTI ,number of cases have come up before the consumer courts for deficiency in services in case of refusal to provide information .Section 2 of the act includes information also as services but after a special act on the subject Right to information  has come into force ,it has to fuction as a special act .National commission has held in one case of Kali Ram v/s state public information officer cum Dupty excise and TC that in cases related to right to information, complainant is not a consumer and there is a special act available for remedy and redressal of grievance.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

Previous

Next