Consumer Dispute Should Not Be Considered Trivial Solely Because The Amount Involved Is Small: Gujarat State Commission
The bench of the Gujarat State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, consisting of M.J. Mehta (President) and P. R. Shah (Member), ruled that a consumer dispute should not be considered trivial solely because of the small amount involved. The commission emphasized that it is imperative for consumer courts to evaluate and decide on the underlying issues in such cases. Additionally,...
The bench of the Gujarat State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, consisting of M.J. Mehta (President) and P. R. Shah (Member), ruled that a consumer dispute should not be considered trivial solely because of the small amount involved. The commission emphasized that it is imperative for consumer courts to evaluate and decide on the underlying issues in such cases. Additionally, the commission disagreed with the notion that a complaint should be rejected merely on the grounds that it took up valuable time or was perceived as an attempt to prolong the proceedings.
Brief Facts:
The case before the commission pertained to Mr. Dinesh Panchal, a resident of Chandkheda, who became embroiled in an alleged unfair trade practice at the parking lot operated by R.S. Corporation (“Respondent”) at Kalupur railway station in Ahmedabad. In May 2019, Mr. Panchal availed of the parking services and made an advance payment of Rs. 170 for a five-day duration. Upon retrieving his vehicle on May 18, he was issued a receipt for Rs. 240, indicating an additional charge of Rs. 4. Mr. Panchal disputed this additional amount, contending that the legitimate parking fees for the specified duration, inclusive of applicable GST, amounted to Rs. 236.
With the support of a consumer rights organization, Mr. Panchal initiated legal proceedings by filing a complaint with the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (“District Commission”) in 2019. However, to his dismay, the district commission summarily dismissed the case in 2022, deeming it frivolous and inconsequential due to the small sum in contention. The District Commission justified the disposal of the matter as "false and frivolous" by claiming that it consumed valuable time without warrant.
Dissatisfied with the District Commission's verdict, Mr. Panchal appealed to the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Gujarat (“State Commission”), seeking a comprehensive evaluation of the case on its merits. Mr. Panchal contended that the District Commission's decision was legally untenable. The parking lot operator had violated the rules by not issuing computerized coupons. He further brought to the State Commission's attention that he had also asked for the permission under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to get remedy for the unfair trade practice done by the respondent affecting other customers as well. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the District Commission's decision was fair and reasonable and that the matter should not be pursued further due to its trivial nature involving a small amount of Rs. 4/-.
Decision of the Court:
After carefully examining the judgment and order of the District Commission, along with the arguments and documentary evidence presented by both parties, the State Commission opined that the District Commission's dismissal of the complaint based on the trivial amount was unjust. The bench found that the matter indeed required a fair evaluation on its merits, as there was a debatable issue at hand. The State Commission further observed that the finding of the District Commission, stating that the case consumed valuable time and was being used to protract the matter, did not suffice as a valid reason to reject the complaint.
In light of their examination, the State Commission concluded that there was a substantial issue in the case that demanded proper adjudication. Therefore, the State Commission deemed the District Commission's order untenable in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the District Commission's decision was set aside and the appeal was partially allowed. The matter was remanded back to the District Commission for a fresh hearing, where the appeal would be considered on its merits and disposed of accordingly, in accordance with the law.
Case: National Labour and Consumer Association and anr. vs R. S. Corporation and others
Case No.: Appeal No. 631 of 2022
Advocate for the Complainant: Kishan Panchal, Ld. Adv. for the Appellant
Advocate for the Respondent: N. S. Bhatt, Ld. Adv. for the respondent no.1 and 2 and Ankit Shah, Ld. Adv. for the respondent no.3