Dismissed

Directorate of Social Justice and Empowerment, v. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Mar 2012CWP/3476/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses the consumer department's challenge to compensation awarded under Haryana's life insurance scheme. The court held that since statutory appeals under the Consumer Protection Act were available, the premature writ petitions were disposed of by granting liberty to challenge the order via the alternative remedy.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to challenge the order of the State Commission by availing the statutory remedy under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Directorate of Social Justice and Empowerment… — Consumer Protection | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.3476 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.3476 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.03.2012

¶5

Directorate of Social Justice and Empowerment, Haryana

¶6

...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission through its Presiding officer, Sector 4, Panchkula.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶11

Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Ajay Kumar Mittal,J .

¶13

This order will dispose of CWP Nos.3476 and 3477 of 2012 as both the petitions involve common question of law. However, facts are being taken from CWP No.3476 of 2012.

¶14

Vide notification dated 19.11.2009, Annexure P.1, the State of Haryana launched a scheme called “Rajiv Gandhi Privar Bima Yojna (in short, “the Scheme”) effective from 1.4.2006 with the object of providing financial help to the eligible families in the event of unnatural or accidental death or permanent disability of an adult member between the age of 18 and 60 years. This scheme covers all persons whose names appear in any voter list of Haryana or who hold a Ration Card issued by the Foods & Supplies Department Haryana except Government employees and Income Tax payees. The scheme is absolutely free and no consideration of any kind is collected from any member of the family. Respondent No.3 - Mamta Devi filed an application before the competent authority for grant of compensation as per the Scheme. It was rejected on the ground that the requisite documents i.e. Post Mortem Report and FIR/DDR were not

¶15

CWP No.3476 of 2012 (O&M)

¶16

¶17

submitted by respondent No.3. Instead of filing an appeal before the petitioner, respondent No.3 approached respondent No.2 – the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (in short, “the District Forum”) by filing a complaint, Annexure P.2. The petitioner-department contested the complaint by filing a reply. It was submitted that respondent No.3 did not come under the definition of “consumer” as per sub-section (1) (d) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the 1986 Act”) and also the benefit rendered by the petitioner-department did not come under the definition of “service” as per sub-section (1) (o) of Section 2 of the 1986 Act and thus, respondent No.3 was not entitled for grant of any benefit under the scheme. Respondent No.2 decided the complaint in favour of respondent No.3 vide order dated 13.1.2011, Annexure P.4 and a direction was given to the department for release of Rs.one lac with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-department filed an appeal under Section 15 of the 1986 Act before respondent No.1. Vide order dated 16.12.2011, Annexure P.5, the appeal was dismissed by respondent No.1. Hence this petition.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Scheme formulated by the State of Haryana being statutory scheme, the District Forum had no authority to award compensation thereunder. It was also submitted that the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission were arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

¶19

The issue regarding challenging the orders passed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the 1986 Act”) by the District Forum or the State Commission came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India and

¶20

CWP No.3476 of 2012 (O&M)

¶21

¶22

others , Civil Appeal No.10706 of 2011, decided on 7.12.2011 whereunder after analyzing the various provisions of the Act, the Apex Court pronounced as under:-

¶23

“A reading of the plain language of Section 17 shows that every State Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds Rs.20 lacs but does not exceed Rs.1 crore. By Section 18, the provisions of Section 12 to 14 and the Rules made thereunder, for the disposal of complaints by the District Forum, have been made applicable for deciding the disputes by the State Commission. Section 19 provides for remedy of appeal against an order made by the State Commission in exercise of its powers under sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Section 17. If Sections 11, 17 and 21 of the 1986 Act which relate to the jurisdiction of the District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission, there does not appear any plausible reason to interpret the same in a manner which would frustrate the object of legislation.

¶24

What has surprised us is that the High Court has not even referred to Sections 17 and 19 of the 1986 Act and the law laid down in various judgments of this Court and yet it has declared that the directions given by the State Commission are without jurisdiction and that too by overlooking the availability of statutory remedy of appeal to the respondents.

¶25

We also find that the High Court has taken cognizance of the statement made on behalf of the counsel for the petitioners that their clients would challenge clause (iii) of para 38 of the State Commission's order by filing an appeal under section 19 of the Act and the fact that one of the aggrieved parties, namely, American Express Bank Limited has already filed an appeal questioning paragraph 38(iii) of the order of the State Commission. After having noticed that some of the petitioners were inclined to avail the remedy of appeal against the particular portion of the order passed by the State Commission, the High Court should not have entertained the

¶26

CWP No.3476 of 2012 (O&M)

¶27

¶28

writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and the miscellaneous petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution and directed them to avail remedy of appeal under Section 19 of the 1986 Act.”

¶29

Further, on a query being put to learned counsel for the petitioner that against the order of the District Forum why the petitioner had adopted to file the appeal before the State Commission under the Act, no reply much less satisfactory could be tendered.

¶30

In view of the above, both the petitions are disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of the State Commission by availing alternative remedy under Section 19 of the 1986 Act.

¶31

A photo copy of the order be placed on the file of connected case.

¶32

March 07, 2012 'gs'

¶33

(Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge

Directorate of Social Justice and Empowerment, v. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Directorate of Social Justice and Empowerment, v. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amarjit Bajaj Vs Ombudsman for Elec. Pb. & Ors.

Tara Devi and Anr. Vs Commissioner Hissar Div. Hissar and Ors.

Devender Singh Dahiya Vs State of Haryana etc.

Ashok Kumar Jain Vs Commissioner Revenue Chd. and Ors.

Sri Ravi Shankar Maharaj and Anr. Vs State Conmsumer Disputes Redressal Commission & Ors.

Sunil Kumar Bathla Vs State of Haryana & Ors.