|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ARE consumer courts forgetting their raison d’etre? Are those who sit in judgement over complaints losing sight of the fact that they are there to defend and protect the rights of people? I have often criticised courts for the delays in deciding cases; for ignoring the simple, summary procedure provided under the Consumer Protection Act, and adopting highly technical methods for resolving a dispute. I have also critiqued them for their insensitivity to clients suffering, and for their miserly computation of damages. But in recent times, I am noticing an even more dangerous trend — of courts failing to uphold the rights of the people given under the law. Take the case of Deepak K.Raman vs Maruti Udyog Ltd (FA No 345 of 2005) decided last month. The central issue here was the delivery of a damaged and repaired car by a Maruti dealer in 1996, after collecting Rs 5 lakh towards a new car. Soon after purchase, Raman came to know that the car delivered to him had actually met with an accident while being transported from the manufacturer’s premises to the dealer’s showroom in Mumbai, and had been extensively damaged. The dealer had, however, got it repaired, replaced several damaged parts, repainted it and sold it as brand new. Raman then made several representations to the manufacturer and the dealer, asking for a replacement or a refund, and on failing to get a positive response, filed a complaint before the Maharashtra state consumer disputes redressal commission in 1997. Now, if you look at the definition of defect under the Consumer Protection Act, this vehicle clearly qualified for that definition because (a) it was not of the standard or quality that one would expect of a brand new vehicle — it had already been damaged extensively and repaired; (b) it was certainly not the quality claimed by the vendor. So the dealer or the vendor was guilty of selling a defective vehicle. Again, if you see the definition of unfair trade practice, it is very clear that the dealer had adopted a deceptive practice or an unfair practice to sell a damaged vehicle as new. So he was guilty of unfair trade practice, too. The CPA gives the client in such cases, (a) the right to a defect-free replacement or a refund; (b) the right to compensation for the consequential loss and hardship suffered; (c) the right to litigation costs; and (d) last, but not the least, the right to punitive damages. Punitive damages are basically meant as a punishment to the wrong doer. But what did the state consumer disputes redressal commission do in this case? It allowed the dealer to go scot-free, and punished the consumer instead by dismissing the case. The grounds that it took for such dismissal were even more shocking. It held that the complainant had failed to file an affidavit to support the allegations made in the complaint. So the consumer was forced to file an appeal before the national consumer disputes redressal commission. The apex court rightly took the state commission to task for dismissing the case "on a wholly incorrect and improper appreciation of the evidence and material on record." It also pointed out that the complainant had produced ample material on record to show that the vehicle had met with an accident while in transit, requiring extensive repairs, including replacement of several parts and repainting of the surface. Besides, the General Manager of Sah and Sanghi Auto Agencies had admitted that the vehicle was involved in an accident, and that this was not disclosed to the buyer. In conclusion, it held
that the dealer had sold a defective car, and was also guilty of
unfair trade practice. However, after coming to these conclusions, the
apex court did not order a replacement of the vehicle or the refund of
its cost. It only awarded a compensation of Rs 1 lakh to the customer
and costs of Rs 10,000. So, after 13 years, the aggrieved person has
still not got justice. I quote this case to underscore the urgent need
for sensitising those who sit in judgement at these courts to the
basic concept of consumer justice embodied in the law. Or else, the
very purpose of setting up these courts would be defeated.
|
|||
|
|
|||
