A Complainant Cannot Be Put To Prejudice For Faults In Adjudication By Consumer Protection Fora: NCDRC [Read Judgment]

The court noted that the Revisionist Petitioner, aggrieved by alleged manufacturing defects in his car, had approached the District Forum in the year 2005. While the complaint was allowed by the District forum and directions were issued to Tata Motors to replace the car, the apex commission noted that the district forum had proceeded in ignorance of the fact that the purchase was made in the name of a firm and thus determination whether the Revisionist Petitioner was a "complainant" in terms of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was necessary.

"we may categorically observe that a preliminary issue, like whether the Complainant is a 'Consumer' under the Act, as was inherent in this case, should have been first decided, with clear findings and reasons recorded," the bench of Justice RK Agrawal (President) and Dinesh Singh (Member) observed.

Further, the court held that failure of the district consumer forum to refer the goods to the appropriate laboratory for analysis and determination of defects (if any), had the effect of vitiating the outcome of the case.

"The procedure prescribed cannot be circumvented as being, say, a 'mere technicality' etc. A bare reading of the procedure prescribed in Section 13 (1) (c) to (g) shows that its objective is to ensure that 'defect' is determined after obtaining impartial expert technical analysis or tests and after hearing both sides on the report, and the findings so arrived at pass credence in scrutiny. That being so, non-adherence to the procedure prescribed vitiates the findings," it held.

Considerably, Tata's appeal before the State forum was allowed with directions that the company may remove the defects "if any". The apex commission noted that the order so passed was an "unreasoned" order. Further, it suffered from inner-inconsistency inasmuch as:

• after giving a finding that the District Forum erred in determining "manufacturing defects", the State Commission made an Award in which it itself directed for removal of "defect" "if any".
• did not remand the case back to the District Forum for decision afresh, to decide the question of 'defect' in manufacture after duly adopting the procedure prescribed in Section 13 (1) (c) to (g) of the Act.

The bench went on to observe that the correct procedure for adjudication of the revision petition would be to remand the case back to the district forum for fresh consideration. However, given that the case was passed in the year 2005 and 14 years had already lapsed, the bench held that doing the same would result in utter hardship and injustice to the Petitioner.

"It is self-evident that the Car cannot be now put to test before an 'appropriate laboratory', to determine 'defect' at the due time i.e. when the case went before the District Forum on 28.04.2005.

The adjudication itself has taken an unduly and unreasonably protracted period of about 14 years, adjudication afresh does not appear feasible by now adopting the procedure prescribed, it also does not befit that a case of such nature be remanded to the forum of original jurisdiction after about one and a half decades.

It will be inappropriate to mechanically remand the case to the District Forum to decide afresh the question of 'defect', when it is self-evident that it will not be feasible for the District Forum to turn the clock back and adopt the procedure prescribed to arrive at a credible finding apropos 'defect'.

… The Act is for "better protection of the interests of consumers". A Complainant cannot be put to prejudice for faults in adjudication by Consumer Protection Fora," it remarked.

With these observations, the bench said that in case during pendency of the revision petition the company had executed the State Commission's order and had removed defects, the same would be left undisturbed, in the interests of justice.

"Manufacturer or the Dealer have not themselves come forth to agitate the Award made by the State Commission, no interim stay on the operation of the impugned Order of the State Commission was granted by this Commission, and it will be somewhat inequitable and result in some miscarriage of justice if, in the contingency that the Award of the State Commission has been complied with in the interregnum, it is now disturbed."

The Commission however clarified that the case will not be treated as a precedent.

Case Details:

Case Title: Gopal Aggarwal v. M/S Tata Motors; Gopal Aggarwal v. M/S Metro Motors & Anr.

Case No.: Rev. Pet. No. 1855/2011; Rev. Pet. No. 1854/2011

Quorum: Justice RK Agrawal (President) & Dinesh Singh (Member)

Appearance: Tarun Jindal (for Petitioner); Advocate Ivan Singh Khosa (for Respondent)

Click Here To Download Judgment

Read Judgment