NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 1051
OF 2001
(From the order dated 3.4.2001 in Revision No.115/SC/2000
of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
Ram Raksh Pal Gupta & Anr. .. Petitioners
Vs.
Smt. Ranjana .. Respondent
BEFORE:
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA,
PRESIDENT
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA, MEMBER.
MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER.
MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER
for
the petitioner : Mr. Arvind Garg, Advocate
ORDER
Dated the 3rd October, 2001
PER JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA
(PRESIDENT)
This petition is filed by the opposite parties under clause (b) of Section 21
of the Consumer Protection Act. It arises out of an interim order passed by
the District Forum.
During the proceedings before the District
Forum, parties filed their affidavits.
Petitioners, it appears, wanted to file further affidavit and for that they requested for an adjournment for a
week. Though this was
opposed by the respondent-complainant, District Forum allowed the prayer of the petitioners
on payment of Rs.25/- as costs and the matter was adjourned to 12.7.1999.
Matter could not be taken up on this day as lawyers were on strike and
complaint was adjourned to
17.8.1999. Since cost was not
paid even on 17.8.99, further
affidavit of the petitioners was not
taken on record and the District Forum
adjourned the complaint to 4.9.1999. We do not find any error in the order of
the State Commission for us to exercise our jurisdiction under clause (b) of
Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Aggrieved
Petitioners filed revision before the State
Commission which was dismissed. State
Commission observed that in regard to payment of costs, petitioner was not serious
and even on 17.8.99, the date after the 12.7.99, when there was strike
of lawyers, cost was not paid. Contention of the petitioners that the complainant refused to
accept the cost was not believed by the State Commission. We do not find any error in the order of the
State Commission for us to exercise our jurisdiction under clause (b) of
Section 21 of the Consumer Protection
Act. This revision petition is
dismissed.
However, before we conclude a very disturbing
feature has come to our notice and that is strike of lawyers and on which ground District Forum adjourned the
matter from 12.7.1999 to 17.8.99.
Strike is a virus which should not be allowed to infect the Fora
constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. It should never be ground for adjournment in a Forum under this Act that the lawyers are on strike. In the
present case we do not think
State Commission took any serious note
of the adjournment by the District Forum on the ground of strike by
lawyers. It must not be forgotten that
the Act is meant to provide speedy
justice to the consumers. Under sub
section (3) Section 13 it
is specifically provided that no proceedings
complying with the procedure laid down in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be called in question in any court on
the ground that the principles of natural justice have not been complied
with. We have to guard ourselves against the
pernicious practice of strike by lawyers spreading to the Fora under the Act. Non-appearance of a lawyer in a Court or Tribunal or any Authority
after being engaged and having
charged his fee could itself be
deficiency in service on his part. There is already a public criticism that
Fora under the Act are fast
becoming civil courts where
adjournments are granted as a matter
of course. This should not be
permitted otherwise the purpose of the
Act will be lost. State Commissions
should ensure that no adjournment is granted on the ground of strike by
lawyers. If the lawyers do not appear
before District Forum or State Commission, it can decide the matter on the
basis of the record, if it so chooses.
A request for adjournment on the
ground of strike by lawyers is not justifiable ground for
adjourning the matter.
.J.
(D.P.
WADHWA)
PRESIDENT
..J.
(J.K.
MEHRA)
MEMBER
.
(RAJYALAKSHMI
RAO)
MEMBER
..
(
B.K. TAIMNI)
MEMBER