Ch.Krishnaiah, S/o Late Ch.Thimmaiah v. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary

Telangana HC30 Oct 2013WP/12133/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 16(1B) and 20(1A) of the C.P. Act, holding them valid for expediting disposal. It also allowed condonation of a short lapse in resubmitting appeals, setting aside orders rejecting the delay, subject to payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders setting aside appeal rejection rejected; applications for condonation of delay allowed subject to payment of Rs. 2,000 costs to complainants.

Ch.Krishnaiah, S/o Late Ch.Thimmaiah Vs Union of… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.16091 & 16092 OF 2013 And WRIT PETITION No.12133 OF 2013

¶3

Dated: 30.10.2013

¶4

WRIT PETITION Nos.16091 & 16092 OF 2013 Between: M/s. Prestige Avenue Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director and others .. Petitioners And The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, and others .. Respondents WRIT PETITION No.12133 OF 2013 Between: Ch.Krishnaiah .. Petitioner And The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, and others .. Respondents

¶5

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.16091 & 16092 OF 2013 And WRIT PETITION No.12133 OF 2013

¶7

COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini)

¶8

The petitioners in all these writ petitions are aggrieved by the orders passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in declining to condone the delay in resubmission of the appeals preferred by the petitioners under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the C.P. Act”).

¶9

The petitioners also sought a declaration that the amendment made to the C.P. Act by inserting Section 16(1B) and Section 20(1A) is unconstitutional and against the spirit of the C.P. Act.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents, we do not find any substance in the writ petitions to the extent of the prayer to declare Section 16(1B) and Section 20(1A) as unconstitutional.

¶11

Sub-section (1B) to Section 16 and Sub-section (1A) to Section 20 of the C.P. Act are inserted by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 62 of 2002) providing that the jurisdiction powers and authority of the State Commission and the National Commission may be exercised by Benches thereof.

¶12

It is relevant to note that different Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies viz., District Forum, State Commission and National Commission are established under Section 9 of the C.P. Act. As per Section 16(1) each State Commission shall consists of the President and not less than two members one of whom shall be a women. Similarly as per Section 20(1) the National Commission shall consists of the President and not less than four members one of whom shall be a women. Subsequently by Amendment Act 62 of 2002 sub-section (1B) and sub-section (1A) are inserted to Sections 16 and 20 respectively providing that the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the State Commission and National Commission may be exercised by Benches thereof and that a Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more members as the President may deem fit. It is relevant to note that in the light of the power so conferred on the President to constitute a Bench with one or more members it is not necessary that every Bench should consist of the President and the women member. The statement of objects and reasons to Act 62 of 2002 shows that the above sub-sections have been inserted providing for creation of Benches to achieve quicker disposal of consumer complaints.

¶13

In the light of the object with which the Act 62 of 2002 has been made, we do not find any justifiable reason to hold that Section 16(1B) and Section 20(1A) are unconstitutional on any ground whatsoever. Apparently it is only for the purpose of making the provisions of the Act more effective and achieve quicker disposal of consumer complaints by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Agencies. Therefore, the prayer in the writ petitions to the extent of seeking a declaration that the amended provisions are unconstitutional is misconceived and cannot be granted. Accordingly, the prayer in the Writ Petitions to the said extent is hereby rejected.

¶14

Coming to the other part of the prayer in the writ petitions, we found that there was delay ranging from 12 days to 18 days in

¶15

resubmission of the appeals presented before the State Commission against the orders of the District Forum. The State Commission declined to condone the said delay observing that the appellants/writ petitioners have not even filed an affidavit explaining the delay.

¶16

It is no doubt true that the delay has to be explained by making out a sufficient cause and the appellants are expected to file their affidavits, however having regard to the fact that the appeals were filed in time but the delay was only in representation of the appeal, it appears to us that a liberal approach can be adopted and the delay in resubmission/representation can be condoned subject to reasonable terms and conditions.

¶17

Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 19.11.2012 are set aside and the applications for condonation of delay in resubmitting the appeals of the petitioners are condoned subject to the condition of the writ petitioners paying costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) in each one of the appeal to the complainants within two (2) weeks from today. On such payment, the appeals shall be numbered, if they are otherwise in order, and the same shall be heard and decided following due process of law expeditiously.

¶18

All the Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶19

Consequently the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed.

¶20

_____________ G. ROHINI, J

¶21

________________________ T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J

¶22

Date: 30.10.2013 Ivd

Ch.Krishnaiah, S/o Late Ch.Thimmaiah v. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch.Krishnaiah, S/o Late Ch.Thimmaiah v. Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Somdatt Builders - Ramky (Jv), Vs Hyderabad Growth Corridor Ltd.

M/s. Divighnu Versions Vs The Indian Overseas Bank

Sri Bitla Satish Kumar Vs State Bank of India , Hanmakonda Branch, Warangal

M/s.Venkata Chakradev Hydralics, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

M/ s. Prestige Avenue Ltd, Vs Union of India

M/s. Help Hospitals Private Limited Vs The Joint Commissioner (Ct) Legal