B.S.BINDRA vs SECRETARY, UNION OF INDIA

NOTWITHSTANDING the earnest efforts made by Shri Bindra who appeared in person before us to make out that the impugned order passed by the State Commission is not in accordance with law and is also contrary to the facts of the case, we are unable to find any justifiable ground for interference with the impugned order passed by the State Commission. The State Commission has found that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party in the matter of the grant of telephone connection to the appellant herein. We confirm the said finding and dismiss the appeal. No costs. Mr. Y. Krishan, Member I agree, I, however, would like to invite attention to the observations of the State Commission in its order in the Original Petition filed by the appellant here.

THE State Commission had observed in its order "the complainants was more than generous in lambasting the relevant records/ registers/waiting"list maintained by the Department by making sweeping generalisations and using all sorts of pejorative expressions e.g. " bogus, illegal, incorrect" etc. But he was woefully parsimonious when it came to the "specifics". He did not identify even a single infirmity/deficiency/shortcoming/irregularity in these registers though he examined the records on more than one occasion. In any case this Commission found no instance or evidence of any forgery, interpolation, tampering with over, writing or any other irregularity in their maintenance". Further the State Commission quotes the averments of the complainant: (i) "Only because, these allegations of facts have been made by me, their write to keep me alienated from doing my first duty....... tortuously depriving me of the freedoms of Fundamental Rights, particularly those of expressions........" (ii) "I ventured to blurt out the truth against them in defence of the constitution of my Bharat." "The relief prayed for before any of the Judicial Forums can be allowed to me on platter only if I succumb to barter away the freedom of my Conscience an agree to toe their line of Thievery, Debauchery & Falsity........................."

THE State Commission commented that " But we regret that we could not understand the precise nature of this nexus nor did the complainant shed any light on the linkage(s) between his grievance and the set of extraordinary events referred to in the final version of his complaint and the reason or reasons as to how or why he fell four of " the powers that be".

THE State Commission concluded by saying that "the complainant could not cite a single instance in which some one below him in the waiting list had been provided a telephone connection by passing him over." After making all these observations, the State Commission dismissed the complaint but with no order as to costs. It would be evident from the observations of State Commission that according to its finding, the complaint was not only frivolous or fictitious but also false and clearly attracted the Provisions of Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act. If the Consumer forums chose not to invoke the provisions of Section 26 even if there is patent abuse of the Consumer Protection Act the provision of a free Forum for adjudication of consumer complaints would only encourage such complaints being lodged before the Consumer Forums leading to harassment of the providers of goods and services and the Consumer Forum being saddled with disposal of such complaints. This bodes ill for the efficient functioning of the Consumer Forums.