|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In at least three recent cases, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had expressed its displeasure over baseless appeals filed by service providers and imposed punitive damages to the tune of Rs 25,000. Now, by quadrupling this quantum of damages, the highest consumer court in the country has sent out a clear signal that it has further toughened its stand on those who misuse the appeal provision to unnecessarily prolong the process of adjudication, harass the consumer and waste time of the courts. The ten-page order, delivered by Justice V.B. Gupta and Vinay Kumar, is unambiguous on how it intends to deal with such litigants. Says the order, "Equity demands that such unscrupulous litigants, whose only aim and object is to deprive the opposite party (complainants or the consumers) of the fruits of the decree, must be dealt with a heavy hand. A strong message is required to be sent to such type of litigants that this Commission is not helpless in such type of matters". (R. Narasimha Reddy Vs Kuchakula Surender Reddy, FA No 502 of 2011, decided on March 5, 2012)
However, instead of complying with the order, one of the partners, Narasimha Reddy, who had failed to appear before the consumer court despite notice, filed an application before the State Commission, arguing that the order, decided in his absence be set aside. When this was rejected, he challenged this before the National Commission through a revision petition, which too got dismissed. Not satisfied, he next filed an appeal before the National Commission against the order of the State Commission. When this was dismissed as time-barred, he filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. This too was dismissed. Meanwhile, the complainant was forced to file an execution petition before the State Commission, seeking compliance of its order. Again, while one of the partners appeared before the commission and said he would abide by its order, Narasimha Reddy did not appear, forcing the State Commission to issue a non-bailable warrant against him under Section 27 of the CP Act. So this time, Narasimha Reddy filed an appeal before the National Commission against this order. The complainant's counsel Amrit Pal Singh echoed the anger and helplessness felt by the senior citizen in the face of a barrage of appeals, when he told the commission that the builder was only interested in frustrating the process of justice and denying the consumer, his flat. In the end, the National Commission concluded that the appeal was frivolous and constituted a gross abuse of the process of law and needed to be dismissed with punitive costs. While Rs 75,000 was directed to be paid to the complainant, the remaining was to be credited to the 'Consumer Legal Aid Account' of the commission, the apex consumer court said. Punitive or exemplary damages are usually awarded in addition to actual damages (awarded for loss suffered by the complainant) and are meant as a punishment to deter the offender (and others too) from such behaviour in the future. So the steep punitive damages in this case (hopefully it will get steeper in cases such as these) should force trade and industry to think twice before filing appeals without merit. Such appeals also make the entire process of consumer justice expensive for consumers. So in addition to punitive damages, the consumer courts should also award costs commensurate with the expenses incurred by the consumer for contesting the appeals. This would also make the trade and industry re-think on appeals. It would also force then to respond to notices from consumer courts without fail and comply with its orders with promptness.
|
||
|
|
||
Retailers
It all began with a
complaint filed by 74-year-old Kuchakula Surendar Reddy, a resident of
Hyderabad in 2009, against a construction company (Shikhara
Constructions) and its two partners-Vishnu Vardhan Reddy and R.
Narasimha Reddy. The company had failed to hand over Kuchakula's flat,
for which he had already paid Rs 23 lakh in 2007. The Andhra Pradesh
State Commission, in its order delivered in September 2010, directed
the partners to complete the construction, execute the sale deed, hand
over the flat to the complainant and also pay compensation as per the
agreement signed by the parties. It also directed the consumer to pay
the balance amount of Rs 13, 25,000 to the builder, which he did.