Procedure For Adjudication Of Complaint Given In Consumer Protection Act Should Be Adhered To: Delhi High Court Tells NCDRC

The Delhi High Court recently observed that the procedure for adjudication of a complaint as mentioned under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 had to be adhered to. 

A Bench of Justice Amit Bansal remarked so while hearing a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), 

The NCDRC had directed the Chief Executive Officer of the petitioner company, who was the opposite party before it, to file an affidavit within two weeks and also be present in person through video conferencing on the next date of hearing. 

Advocate Pravin Bahadur, appearing for the petitioner company submitted that there was no occasion to pass such an order as the petitioner had already filed his reply to the complaint within the stipulated time period and thereafter, the adjudication of the complaint had to proceed on merits.

He further told the Court that at present, the petitioner company did not have a CEO and an affidavit, signed by one of the directors, in terms of directions passed by the NCDRC had already been filed.

Therefore, it was prayed that the said affidavit may be taken on record and the requirement of the CEO to appear in person may be dispensed with.

Having considered the matter, the Court was of the view that there was no occasion for the NCDRC to direct filing of an affidavit by the CEO or to direct for his personal presence, since the reply of the complaint had been filed within the stipulated time period.

The prompted the Court to opine that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) and the rules framed thereunder contained a well defined procedure for deciding a complaint.

"While this Court appreciates the intent shown by the NCDRC to effectuate a settlement between the parties, the procedure for adjudication of the complaint as per the provisions of the Act has to be adhered to", it added.

"No reasons have been provided for directing filing of an affidavit by the Chief Executive Officer or for directing the Chief Executive Officer to be present in person on the next date of hearing", further observed the Court.

Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the NCDRC was set aside.

The NCDRC has also been directed to adjudicate the complaint on merits, as per the procedure laid down under the Act and the rules framed thereunder. The additional affidavit filed by one of the directors of the petitioner company would be taken on record and the NCDRC would not insist on the personal appearance of the Chief Executive Officer of the petitioner company, added the Bench.

Noting that the petitioner did not have a CEO at present, it was further ordered that the settlement talks as directed by NCDRC would be conducted on behalf of the petitioner company by its senior executive.

Cause Title: M/S SYLVANUS PROPERTIES LTD. v. PARESH PRATAP RAI MEHTA

Click here to Download the Order.