AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE relief claimed by the applicant/complainant in his application has now rendered infructuous in view of change in the circumstances.
HOWEVER, we, with some amount of anguish, have been constrained to take serious note of most disturbing factor in the functioning and working of the District Forum, Worli. The facts as averred in this application graphically depicts the position, which is not healthy, and conducive to the functioning of Fora established under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which mandates speedy and trouble-free disposal of the disputes of the consumers. We would wish that the Presiding Officers of the said Forum as also other Forums in the State take serious note and cognizance as to what follows in the judgment herein and modulate their functioning and working so as to accomplish benevolent object of the said Act of ensuring settlements of consumer disputes instead of defeating and frustrating the same as is the case in hand. Brief facts which are revealing are as follows : The applicant herein is original complainant in the aforesaid complaint which is filed in the year 1999 against the respondents herein. We do not propose to dilate over the merits or de-merits of the claim in the complaint. In fact the same is not the issue in the application herein.
The applicant/complainant has been compelled to approach this Commission in somewhat peculiar circumstances which clearly demonstrate insensitivity and lack of responsibilities and accountability on the part of the said Forum.
THE complainant has stated that on compliance of the pre-requisite formalities of the complaint the same was finally heard on merits by the Worli Forum which was then presided over by Shri A.S. Shivalkar as its President. However, the Forum did not pronounce its final verdict therein immediately or soon after the conclusion of the hearing and the pronouncement of the judgment was deferred. THE complainant states that the judgment was not dictated and the matter was adjourned from time to time for the judgment. In the meantime it so transpired that the President Shri A. Shivalkar came to be transferred from District Forum, Worli to Mumbai Suburban District Forum, Dadar (now at Bandra), who took charge of the said transferred Forum at Dadar without pronouncing the judgment in the complaint. Thereafter the complainant moved the Worli Forum, which by then was presided over by successor of Shri Shivalkar, Hon''ble President expressed that since the matter was already heard by the Bench presided by Shri Shivalkar, whether it would be possible for the said Bench to pronounce the judgment. However, for some reason such suggestion as indicated did not materialize, because it is stated, that there was no positive response indicated by and on behalf of the then President Shri Shivalkar. This drove the complainant to move this application.
AS stated earlier at the resume of the judgment that the relief claimed in this application seeking transfer of the complaint to the Bench presided over by Shri Shivalkar has since rendered infructuous in view of the fact that Mr. Shivalkar has ceased to be the President of Mumbai Suburban District Forum because of his resignation. In the circumstances as far as this application is concerned we issue directions to the District Forum, Worli (now at Tardeo) to work out the matter herein afresh expeditiously after intimation to the parties concerned. As we have been receiving number of applications of such types, as also complaints from consumer litigants against many Forums, which do not ensure to pronounce and declare judgments immediately or soon after the conclusion of hearing of the consumer disputes, and that passing of final judgments are deferred for indefinite period, which results in causing hardships to the consumer litigants, we order and direct the Forums in the State to forthwith discontinue such pernicious practice of deferring the passing of the final verdicts in the consumer disputes after conclusion of hearing, for longer time or indefinitely as also defer or reserve such judgments/orders in a large number of matters. We wish to state and clarify that non-adherance to this would be considered as gross misconduct on the part of the Presiding Officers of such Forums liable for appropriate action.
WE may add and we are so informed as far as Worli Forum is concerned, in large number of matters which were heard finally by the Bench presided over by the then President Shri Shivalkar the judgment/final orders have remained to be delivered and all these matters were required to be heard afresh on de-novo basis which resulted in causing great hardships and inconvenience to the consumer litigants, delay apart. Such was the position, in fact much serious, which was pointed out earlier in regard to the Mumbai Suburban District Forum, Dadar (now Bandra) wherein nearly in 80/90 matters, finally heard, were reserved or deferred for passing orders, and ultimately, as the result of the President of the said Forums, ceasing to be its President, most of the cases were required to be heard afresh, which evoked sharp criticism from consumer litigants and, justifiably as they were the sufferers and victims. Such conduct of the Forum is a gross act of dereliction of their onerous and statutory duties, carrying a very undesirable impression about Fora and their function in the minds of the consumer litigants and as such detrimental to the interest of the consumers, for whose benefit the same are established and meant for.
TO obviate all such evils, we propose to issue guidelines to the Forums in this State so as to facilitate them to ensure speedy disposal of consumer disputes after giving requisite opportunities to the parties as required under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the relevant Rules. In this respect we wish to refer to our earlier judgments delivered by us in Appeal No. 687/1999 in Complaint No. 687/1999, District Forum, Latur dated 17th February, 2000 and Appeal No. 2700/1998 in Complaint No. 524/1996, Mumbai Suburban Forum, decided on 15th March, 2000 which judgments have already been circulated to all District Forums under the direction of the State Commission. In both the judgments this Commission has issued directions and guidelines to the Forums in the State for their followance and observance while ensuring the adjudication of consumer disputes at final stages.
It is a matter of regret that such guidelines issued by this Commission as Appellate Forum, which also exercises administrative control over District Forums as provided under Section 24B of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are being observed in non-observance only. We reiterate the guidelines as contained in the aforesaid judgments with specific and clear directions to all the Forums in the State that they shall follow the same in course of disposal of consumer disputes. In particular, we reiterate paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment in Appeal No. 687 of 1999 for the purpose of convenient perusal. "Para 12 : Now herein below, we proceed to outline certain directions/guidelines which the Presiding Officers of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum would bear in mind and follow while discharging their functions.
Para 13(1). Reception of complaints, scrutiny, issuance of initial process to O.Ps. : (i) At the inception itself, the complaints filed and received by the Forum should be carefully scrutinized to ascertain maintainability, territorial, pecuniary jurisdiction/limitation, etc. (ii) It should be also ensured whether full and complete descriptions and addresses of the parties furnished/mentioned or not ? (iii) It should be also ascertained whether the complaint sets out a specific case. The directions are relevant in the context of provisions of Sections 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (iv) Steps should be taken for the issuance of the process of the Forum to the O.Ps. promptly and without any delay. (v) Assistance should be extended to the parties appearing in person in filing as also further processing of the complaints in a proper manner. (vi) The President of the District Forum should specially ensure that concerned staff extends all required assistance to such parties.
(2) (i) Maintenance of Records : The Forums should ensure to maintain yearwise records in the form of a Register for complaints/applications noting particulars such as : (i) Serial number, complaint/application number. (ii) Name of the parties and their Advocates (if any) in brief. (iii) Date of filing. (iv) Date of disposal. (v) Result : Whether claim allowed or dismissed/rejected. (vi) Date of supplying order.
(ii) Documents/Exhibits, etc. : When the parties tender documents, the same should be received along with list of documents containing brief description of the documents and the party from which such documents are tendered. If the documents contain files or loose papers then it should be ensured that the same are received after indexing and proper pagination. This should be scrupulously followed since the Commission is receiving complaints about missing of documents. The documents produced/tendered by the parties should be given Numbers for identification, such as, in case of complaint''s document, it be indicated as C-1, C-2 and so on and accordingly recited and described in the order. (iii) Preservation of Records : It is necessary for every Forum to arrange in most systematic manner and maintain Forum record in proceedings before it, as far as possible, as done in the Court proceedings, that is- (i) Part-I should contain original complaint, order/Roznama sheets and affidavits, oral evidence and documents or copies of documents of the complaint. (ii) Part-II should contain written statements/affidavits and evidence and documents of O.Ps., and (iii) Part-III should contain other miscellaneous papers in the proceedings. (iv) It is necessary to do the indexing and pagination of Part-I and Part-II in chronological order to be placed at the beginning of each part. (v) Each part should be properly stitched/tagged. (vi) The above arrangement of Record should be followed strictly when required to be sent to the National/State Commission in Appeals.
(3) (i) Hearing of the Complaints/Applications by the Forums : (i) The Forum should ensure to dispose of the matters expeditiously as required under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to obviate any inconvenience and hardship to the parties approaching the Forum and importantly, un-due delay. (ii) Unjustified and frequent adjournments should be discouraged. (iii) Before taking up for an inquiry, it should be ascertained whether all the concerned parties have been duly served with Forum Notices or not ? The Forum should satisfy about the proof of service. (ii) Pronouncement of Orders : (i) As far as possible, the order should be pronounced soon after the completion of the submissions of the parties preferably in the presence of parties and their Advocates. (ii) In case the order is required to be deferred and reserved for any reason, the adjourned date of the order should also be informed to the concerned parties. (iii) Efforts should be made to furnish certified copies of the orders to the parties on proper identification and their acknowledgements should be obtained. (iv) In case orders are transmitted through post then steps should be taken to dispatch the same at the proper addresses and postal certificates should be preserved. (v) The order as statute mandates has necessarily to be signed by the President of the Forum and the other Members being associated with the hearing of the matter. This should be scrupulously followed.
(4) Fixing and Regulating Sitting Timings of the Forums : In view of the grievances made before the High Court as noted in the order of the High Court, dated 14.2.2000, quoted above, the Presidents and Members of the Forums shall ensure and adhere to the strict sitting timings of the Forum and be punctual in that respect. It should be ensured that the parties are not put to any hardship and inconvenience.
(5) The President of the District Forum should supervise and oversee that the aforesaid directions/guidelines are properly and diligently followed." We also reiterate whatever we have observed in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of our judgment in case of R.A. Thorat (supra), which also for convenient perusal reproduced below :
"Para 16. It is most significant to note that the complainant has not at all dealt with the said statements of the appellant reproduced herein above either before the District Forum or before us. For that matter, he has not denied or controverted the same. Not a word is stated about it. It is somewhat baffling and perplexing that even District Forum, for the reasons which are unfathomable, has failed to consider it. In fact it has completely overlooked and ignored it. The said explanation of the appellant goes to the root of the matter. It is indeed curious and also shocking and disturbing that the District Forum proceeded in perfunctory and casual manner, without carefully considering and appreciating the material facts which are glaring and clinching the issues and which strongly militate against the merits of the grievances of the complainant against the appellant."
"Para 17. We are constrained to say something over the manner in which the District Forum has proceeded to dispose of the complaint in question in casual and perfunctory manner which clearly reveals that it has not cared to notice and appreciate most vital and relevant material placed before it. Its judgment and so-called findings lack clarity and is devoid of coherence. It lacks consistency. It is a classic instance as to how District Forum, enjoying status, position and power similar to District Court, has conducted itself, unbecoming to his onerous position. Even no care is taken to use proper grammatical language. Indeed it is very sorry state of affair and disturbing too. Especially so when the Apex Court in its recent judgment in the case of Fair Air Engineers Ltd. & Ors. v. N.K. Modi, reported in III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC)=(1999) 6 Supreme Court Cases page 385, has held that the Forums functioning under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 exercise judicial authority and have all trapping of Civil Courts and its Presiding Officers - President as also Members are in par with Judges. Further, under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, these Forums enjoy and possess wide powers and deal with and decide claims of the parties, under different statutes, involving heavy stakes. It is necessary that such Forums conduct in responsible manner and be circumspect in processing claims before them. It is imperative that they apply their minds to the facts and material before it carefully and scrutinise and consider the same in arriving and reaching conclusive findings. They will refrain from being casual and perfunctory."
"Para 18. It should be borne in mind and remembered that the main purpose of administration of justice is to create in the community a feeling of satisfaction by doing justice. There are two distinctive functions of the Forums - first to find out, scrutinise and determined the facts and material before it and then apply the law. The ultimate decision should indicate the reasons on which it is based. Recording of reasons in a judicial or quasi judicial matter is imperative and failure to do so would vitiate the final decision. A litigant is entitled to a full and reasoned judgment stating the Courts appreciation of facts and the reasons for coming to the conclusions. We may quote what the Apex Court has luminously laid down in this respect in the case of Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1976 SC page 1785 :
"A party who approaches the Government in exercise of a statutory right, for adjudication of a dispute is entitled to know at least the official designation of the person who has considered the matter, what was considered by him, and the reasons for recording a decision against him. To enable the High Court or this Court to exercise its constitutional powers, not only the decision, but an adequate disclosure of materials justifying an inference that there has been a judicial consideration of the dispute by an authority competent in that behalf in the light of the claim made by the aggrieved party, is necessary. If the officer acting on behalf of the Government chooses to give no reasons, the right of appeal will be devoid of any substance. It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function, it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law''."
On this point, we also refer to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court, directly concerning in the consumer dispute, in the case of Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital & Ors., reported in III (2000) CPJ 1 (SC)=VI (2000) SLT 867=(2000) 7 SCC 668, which posits that powers exercised by Forums are quasi judicial and they should record reasons, however brief, for their conclusions.
WE were required to issue guidelines in R.A. Thorat case (supra), as we came across in large number of appeals filed before us against the orders of the District Forums in the State, that there was no proper advertence to the relevant facts placed by the parties in their pleadings in the complaints before them. The judgment used to be perfunctory; slip-shod demonstrating non-applications and non-consideration of the material facts. In certain matter we also noticed that the Forum before taking up complaints for final disposal do not ensure that the O.Ps. were duly served or not and that parties have complied with necessary formalities pre-requisite to the final adjudication of the consumer disputes, such as filing of brief affidavit in proof of claim in the complaint by the complainant and by the O.Ps. in proof of evidence of their defence and filing of lists of documents. Such formalities, which are minimum, ought to be complied with before the matters are taken up for final adjudication. In this respect we wish to draw attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lata Construction & Ors. v. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah & Ors., reported in III (1999) CPJ 46 (SC)=X (1999) SLT 77, wherein the Apex Court has underlined the importance of filing of separate affidavits by the parties in the consumer disputes in support of their respective pleadings i.e. to say the complainant in support of averments in the complaint and O.Ps. in support of written statements.
IN this respect we also think it necessary to refer to the Format of the notice to be issued as initial process under Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 set up by this Commission in the light of provisions in Consumer Protection Act and the Rules, as also after taking into consideration various judgments of the Supreme Court and National Commission on the point. Such Format of initial Notice is required to be issued in the complaints to the opposite party, under Section 13(1) to (6) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to facilitate the parties for the compliance of the requisite formalities including timely obtaining Reports/Opinion of Authorised Laboratory/experts, pre-requisite for disposal of consumer disputes, expeditiously and, at the same time, providing opportunities to the parties as required under the said Act for convenient perusal, Format of such notice is annexed as Schedule-I to this judgment. Also annexed is Format of Order Sheet to be prepared by the Office of the Forum, while processing further the consumer complaint, after its due admission, by issue of initial process, etc. being Schedule-II thereto. Both are self explanatory and which have been furnished to all the Forums in the State. We are constrained to note that certain Forums have not introduced the same in the Forums. We direct that all the Forums to introduce the said Format forthwith and the Presidents of the Forums are expected to supervise and oversee as also ensure that same are introduced forthwith. We think it appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital & Ors., (supra), wherein the Apex Court has posited that the Consumer Fora while disposing of consumer disputes have to pass order which must manifest full application of their mind to all relevant facts and circumstances brought before them. The Forum shall bear in mind that their judgments are subject to appeal before this Commission and which appeals are thereafter carried to the National Commission and then to the Apex Court. Therefore, bearing in mind all these facts, the District Forum shall ensure that they apply their mind judicially to the facts and circumstances and also to the material placed before them during the course of final adjudication of the consumer disputes. Their judgments must be precise, concise and to the point, and should not be verbose, repetitive and lengthy. The Consumer Fora shall bear in mind that the Apex Court in the case of Fair Air Engineers Ltd. & Ors. v. N.K. Modi (supra), has held that the Consumer Fora functioning under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, have all trappings of Civil Court and exercise (sic.) reads the various provisions contained in Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it would be clear that the Forums have been exercising the powers of adjudication of the claims concerning consumer disputes, which they have to do as posited by the Supreme Court in the case of Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital & Ors., (supra), by applying well recognised and settled principles of law and not arbitrarily and fancifully.
THE conspectus of discussion as above clearly indicates- (I) THE Consumer Forums are obliged under the Act to settle consumer disputes, expeditiously, eschewing technicalities, bearing in mind paramount and predominant consideration to serve the consumers and avoid any hardship and convenience to them. (II) Not to get unduly swayed by technicalities and Forums must endeavour, strive and exert, bearing in mind benevolent objects of the act, to serve the consumers in all possible way. (III) THEy shall play very active, positive and constructive role in ensuring that the parties to the disputes comply with requisite pre-trial formalities, indicated herein above, and further ensure that consumer disputes are settled justly and meaningfully, in the light of norms laid down by the Apex Court, referred to earlier in this judgment and shall not remain as silent and mute spectators and in given cases extend necessary assistance to the parties in compliance of required formalities. It is thought necessary to mention, that the Apex Court, National Commission and this Commission are required to remand many cases, decided by the Forums in slip-shod, perfunctory and casual manner, without following the statutory requirements, for retrial afresh on merits, after lapse of four/five years, which is, it would be appreciated not in a good taste and lowers the prestige of the Forums in the eyes of the public and operates as great hardship to the consumers. It is stressed that the President of the Forums carry heavy responsibility who shall make every attempt by enlisting cooperation of the other Members and the Staff and shall act as the Captain of the Team, in discharge of their functions and duties. THEy shall bear in mind the confidence reposed by the Supreme Court, on the role of the Presidents of Fora, when it observed in judgment in the case of Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha & Anr., reported in III (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)=AIR 1996 SC Page 550, stating :
''But the presence of a person well versed in Law as the President (of Fora) will have a bearing on the deliberations of these agencies (i.e. Fora) and their decisions''. This would underline the responsibility of the Presidents of Fora in the process of settlement of consumer disputes. (iv) It would suffice as to how the Supreme Court in one of its landmark judgments, in the case of S.P. Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., which is known as "Judges Transfer Case" has viewed and idealized as to how the Presiding Officers of the Judicial Wing in the country and its officers should conduct- "But if the judiciary should be really independent something more is necessary and that we have to seek in the Judge himself and not outside. A Judge should be independent of himself. THE Judge is a human being who is a bundle of passions and prejudices, likes and dislikes, affection and ill-will, hatred and contempt and fear and recklessness. In order to be a successful Judge these elements should be curved and kept under restraint and that is possible only by education, training, continued practice and cultivation of sense of humility and dedication to duties. THEse curbs cannot be bought in the market or injected into human system by written or unwritten laws. If these things are there even if any of the protective measures provided by the Constitution and the laws go, the independents of the judiciary will not suffer. But with all these measures being there still a Judge may not be independent. It is the inner strength of the Judges alone that can save the judiciary. THE life of a Judge does not really call for great act of self-sacrifice; but it does insist upon small acts of self denial almost every day. THE following Sloka explains the true traits of Men with discretion which all Judges should possess; "xxx xxx xxx" (let men trained in ethics or morality insult or praise; let lakshmi (wealth accumulate or vanish as she likes; let death come today itself or at the end of a yuga (millennium), men with discretion will not deflect from the path of rectitude) (v) What is stated herein above are only few enumerative and not exhaustive as such which norms the Presiding Officers of the Forums have to adhere to in fulfilment of their onerous task. (vi) (i) Status of Consumer Fora established under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and nature of their functions/roles, etc.
THERE is some amount of misconception about the precise status of Consumer Fora, established and functioning under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and their functions although wholly misconceived and unjustified, particularly in view of clear provisions as contained in Section 24-B of the said Act introduced by way of amendment in the year 1993, based on the Reports submitted by the then President of the National Commission, Hon''ble Shri Eradi, Retired Judge of the Supreme Court followed by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India & Ors., and as construed and interpreted by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and High Court, authoritatively and decisively bringing out the real import and scope of the said amendment in various decisions, as would be referred to herein after. (I) It is the assumption or rather perception entertained at some quarter, even by the Government, that Fora functioning under Consumer Protection Act, are and have to be under control of the Government since, (i) it constitutes the Fora; (ii) arrange for its funding; (iii) appoints its Presiding Officers like Presidents and Members; and (iv) pays their Salaries, etc. (II) Such assumption, on face of it, is unfounded as also unwarranted and unjustified, for the simple reason that the Consumer Fora, as held by the Supreme Court exercises judicial powers and statutory authority and they have all trappings of the Civil Court and the same are required to adjudicate and settle consumer disputes brought before them, by applying well settled and well recognized principles of law. (Refer judgments of the Supreme Court in cases of Fair Air Engineers Ltd. v. M.K. Modi and Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital (supra). (III) Further reference be made to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ashish Handa v. The Hon''ble Chief Justice of High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors., reported in (1996) SCC page 145, wherein the Apex Court has laid down that procedure to be followed in selection of the President of State Commission under Section 16(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, are similar to that in Article 217 of the Constitution, applicable to the selection of the Judge of the High Court and it is for the Chief Justice of the High Court of the State to select a Judge, either Sitting of Retired for being appointed as a President of the Commission. It is to be noted that Section 24B of Consumer Protection Act vests administrative control with the State Commission over the District Forums. This shows as to how control and balance have been maintained. (IV) In a recent decision of the Supreme Court, this position is reiterated emphatically and succinctly in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. v. Jeet B. Bright & Anr., in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 6928 of 1999, decided on 28th January, 2002, disapproving such assumption of the Governments, laying down clearly as under- "We do not appreciate the executive exercising administrative control over the Presidents and Members of the District Forums as also the Members of the State Commission. In our opinion, administrative control, if any, over the Members of State Commission and Presiding Officer of District Forums should vest only in Chair-person of State Commission. The State Government may, consistently with this take suitable decision and may amend the rules, if necessary." (V) The above enunciations of the Apex Court is so clear, needing no elaboration. (VI) The High Court, Mumbai in Division Bench, has, in the precise issue, in the case of Sadashivrao Gopal Dhamankar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2000 (3) CPR Page 6, luminously laying down- "Section 24-B if read in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Common Cause case (supra), clearly provides that the administrative and supervisory control over the District Forums is that of the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission for short) and such control cannot be vested with any other authority which is unknown to the Act. If any other interpretation is given to the provisions of Section 24-B it would negate the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Common Cause (supra), and therefore, the transfer orders of President-District Forum must be issued by the President of the State Commission in his administrative powers as embodied in Section 24-B of the Act." (VII) We may refer to a recent judgment of High Court Mumbai, delivered on 7th November, 2001 by the Division Bench, in Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 1353 of 1999 in the context, relevant portion reads as under- "The Staff presently deputed to work in the State Consumer Disputes District Forum shall function under the direction and control of the Chairman of the State Commission and Presiding Officer of the District Fora, and should not be withdrawn without prior approval of those authorities." (VIII) It is to be noted that by the above judgments our High Court has explicitly made clear to the State Government and has directed that administrative control over the District Forums shall vests with the State Commission and in view thereof, as stated earlier, assumption of the Government, or for that matter of any other agencies contrary thereto, i.e. to the orders of the Supreme Court and that of our High Court has no basis and justification. On the contrary, same would tantamount to defiance of the orders of the Supreme Court and High Court. (IX) The various pronouncements of the highest judiciary of our country only reiterates and emphasizes the constitutional provisions as provided in Article 50 of the Constitution of India, which directs the State to take steps to separate the judicial Forum from the executive in the public services of the State. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in its landmark judgment in the case of Union of India v. Sakhalchand, reported in AIR 1977 SC Page 1987, has neatly put in that "Article 50 Constitutes the Conscience of the Constitution". In many matters, filed before Fora, the Government and alike agencies figure as the parties. In fact, Consumer Protection Act under Section 2(1)(b)(iii) confers right upon the Central and the State Government to be a complainant in consumer disputes. This is further factor which undermines that Consumer Fora must be independent in their functioning. (X) The purpose of elaborating the above point is to make known and understood to the Forums as also to all concerned, in particular Government as to how their i.e. of the Fora''s independence has been protected, recognized and accepted which they are expected to exercise while discharging their duties and functions in resolution of consumer disputes impartially and independently, as also without succumbing to the pressure of any agency in discharge of their functions. We expect and hope that Presiding Officers of the Forums shall realize their responsibilities and shall endeavour and exert to serve the consumers, with full dedication, sense of duties and without social commitments and work and function in a team spirit instilling confidence in the minds of the public. The concerned agencies shall also recognize the independent status of the Forum, being in par with Courts and shall respect and maintain their prestige and dignity. (XI) At the same time, we express our sincere concern and do not appreciate and disapprove the undue haste in which the State Government accepted the resignation of Shri Shivalkar, the then President who was the part of Bench which had heard the matter herein and many other matters, awaiting for pronouncements of final verdicts adding to the agonies of the litigants and this is, despite specific recommendations of the President of State Commission that acceptance of Shri Shivalkar''s resignation be deferred till he completed his part heard matters including the matter herein by passing pending judgments, for which he had agreed when the President of the State Commission impressed upon him of the necessity to do so. Needless to add that such action on the part of the State Government is contrary to the statutory provisions and in clear violation of the judgment of the Supreme Court and the High Court, referred to herein above, which it is duty bound to respect. Action of the Government has further added to the sufferings of the complainant herein and many more placed in such situation.
We wish to remind all District Forums in the State that they will bear out whatever stated herein above and shall ensure speedy disposal of the consumer disputes and shall further ensure that the consumers are not put to hardship and sufferings as the case in the matter in hand. We also further reiterate that the Forums shall not get swayed by technical rigidities and to be hyper-technical in the conduct of trial of consumer disputes and that they should strive to see that the consumer litigants get speedy reliefs bearings in mind the benevolent and laudable object of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We are aware and fully conscious of the facts that allowances etc. paid to the Presiding Officers of Fora are not satisfactory - especially of the part-timer Members. But having accepted the responsibility, they shall discharge their social obligations and commitments, with sense of duty and service to the cause of consumers bearing in mind as to what the Supreme Court in Judges Transfer case (supra), has laid down. Most importantly they be prompt and punctual in ensuring their attendance in the Forums and participate in the process of disposal of consumer disputes, so that Forums remain effectively functional, during the full working hours of the day.
WE direct the Registry of this Commission to furnish copy of this judgment to District Forum, Worli as also to circulate copies thereof to all District Forums in the State, Chief Secretary, Secretary in Law and Judiciary as also Principal Secretary in charge of Consumer Affairs, Maharashtra Government. ORDER 1. Application stands disposed off. 2. District Forum, Worli (Tardeo) to ensure disposal of the Complaint No. 99 of 1999, expeditiously as directed. 3. Registry of this Commission is directed to furnish copy of this judgment to District Forum, Worli, as also to all the District Forums in the State.
Application disposed of.