SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SHIMLA vs MODERN AUTO MOBILE

THE learned Counsel for the opposite party has raised a preliminary objection to the Dy. Superintendent of Police appearing as agent for the Superintendent of Police, Shimla, the complainant. In support he has drawn our attention to the provision of Order 3, Rules 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. as also to AIR 1955 Bombay page 262, 1937 AIR Madras page-237 and AIR 1917 Allahabad page-90 both based on the first mentioned provision of the Civil Procedure Code.

THE short question for determination in this objection is whether or not Order 3 of the C.P.C. applies to the proceeding drawn under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In so far as the above Act is concerned the procedure to be adopted by a District Forum on receipt of a complaint is laid down in Section 13 of the said Act and Sub-section (4) of the said Section 13 states that for the purpose of the said Section the forum shall enjoy the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure while trying a suit in respect of the following matters :- (i) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath; (ii) the discovery and production of any document or other material object producible as evidence; (iii) the reception of evidence on affidavits; (iv) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source; (v) issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness; and (vi) any other matter which may be prescribed.

Item (vi) supra further provides for investment of some additional matters of the C.P.C. relating to procedure and these have been taken care of through Rule 10 of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 which provides as under :- Additional powers of the National Commission, State Commission and District Forum. (1) THE National Commission, the State Commission and the District Forum shall have power to require any person,- (a) to produce before, and allow to be examined and kept by an officer of the National Commission, the State Commission or District Forum, as the case may be, specified in this behalf, such books accounts, documents or commodities in the custody or under the control of the person so required as may be specified or described in the requisition, if the examination of such books, accounts documents or commodities are required for the purpose of this Act; (b) to furnish to an officer so specified, such information as may be required for the purpose of this Act.

(2)(a) Where during any proceedings under this Act the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum as the case may be has any ground to believe that any book, paper, commodity or document which may be required to be produced in such proceeding are being, or may be destroyed mutilated, altered, falsified or secreted, it may, by written order authorise any officer to exercise the power of entry and search of any premises. Such authorised officer may also seize such books, papers, documents or commodities as are required for the purpose of this Act; Provided that seizure shall be communicated to the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, as soon as it is made or within a period not exceeding 72 hours of making such seizure after specifying the reasons in writing for making such seizure. (b) THE National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, on examination of such seized documents or commodities, as the case may be, may order the retention thereof or may return it to the party concerned. (THE above provision of the procedure are applicable to the State Commission as well under Section 18 ibid)

From the above, therefore, it is obvious that the District Forum and the State Commission constituted under the Consumer Protection Act have been vested with only some limited powers of a Civil Court as specifically stated in Sections 13 and 18 of the said Act read with Rule 10 of the Consumer Protection Rule, 1987, reproduced above. As such, the said Tribunals cannot travel beyond their such limited powers. It is also manifest that these quasi-legal fora created under the above Act are not Civil Courts so as to be deemed as to enjoy the inherent powers as embodied in the Code of Civil Procedure. The provisions of Order 3 of Civil Procedure Code thus cannot be said to apply to the proceedings before the District Forum and the State Commission, these having not been invested specifically in terms of Sub-section 4 (vi) of Section 13 ibid. It would be pertinent to refer to II (1992) CPJ 461 (NC) wherein the National Commission have held that principles of Order 2, Rule 2 of C.P.C. are not applicable to proceedings under the Act, obviously for the same reasons. Order 3, Rules 1 & 3 are not applicable to proceeding under the Consumer Protection Act. To take a contrary view, in our opinion, would tantamount to frustrating the object and purpose of dispensing cheap and prompt justice through this Social Welfare Legislation.

Again, the procedure to be followed by the State Commission has been detailed in Rule 21 of the H.P. Consumer Protection Rules, 1988. It would be observed from Sub-rule (i) ibid that a complaint can be presented by the complainant either in person or by ''his agent'' or be sent under registered post. Further, Sub-rule (3) ibid makes it obligatory on the parties or their agents to appear before the State Commission on the date(s) of hearing. From the emphasis supplied it is abundantly clear that a complainant or the opposite party can be represented by an ''agent'' and not necessarily an ''authorised agent'', the term used in Order 3 of the C.P.C. Further more the would ''agent'' having been defined in Rule 2(b) of the H.P. Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 itself, it would not be lawful to give the word a meaning other than the one so explained. In view of the above discussion we find no merit in the preliminary objection and rule it out. Preliminary objection ruled out.