राज्‍य उपभोक्‍ता विवाद प्रतितोष आयोग, उ0प्र0, लखनऊ।

सुरक्षित

अपील सं0-१७५०/२०१४

(जिला फोरम/आयोग, औरैया द्वारा परिवाद सं0-१२५/२००९ में पारित प्रश्‍नगत निर्णय एवं आदेश दिनांक १२-०९-२०१३ के विरूद्ध)

सेण्‍ट्रल बैंक आफ इण्डिया द्वारा शाखा प्रबन्‍धक, पोस्‍ट-सहार, जिला औरैया।

                                              ...........अपीलार्थी/विपक्षी सं0-२.

बनाम

१. बड़े लाल आयु लगभग ४८ वर्ष

२. कृष्‍ण चन्‍द्र, आयु लगभग ३२ वर्ष पुत्रगण मौजी लाल

३. लाल सिंह आयु लगभग २८ वर्ष

४. मेलना आयु लगभग ५९ वर्ष पत्‍नी मौजी लाल 

   निवासीगण ग्राम-पुरवा ललऊ, पोस्‍ट-गपचरियापुर, जिला औरैया।

............ प्रत्‍यर्थीगण/परिवादीगण।

५. जिला कृषि अधिकारी औरैया।

६. निदेशक कृषि सांख्यिकी एवं फसल बीमा उ0प्र0 कृषि भवन, लखनऊ।

७. यूनाइटेड इण्डिया एश्‍योरेंस कम्‍पनी लि0 मण्‍डलीय कार्यालय द्वारा वरिष्‍ठ मण्‍डलीय प्रबन्‍धक, लखनऊ।   

                                              ............ प्रत्‍यर्थीगण/विपक्षीगण। 

समक्ष:-

१-  मा0 श्री राजेन्‍द्र सिंह, सदस्‍य।

२-  मा0 श्री विकास सक्‍सेना, सदस्‍य।

अपीलार्थी की ओर से उपस्थित    : श्री जफर अजीज विद्वान अधिवक्‍ता। 

प्रत्‍यर्थीगण/परिवादीगण की ओर से उपस्थित : श्री आर0के0 मिश्रा विद्वान अधिवक्‍ता।

दिनांक :- १९-०५-२०२२.

मा0 श्री राजेन्‍द्र सिंह, सदस्‍य द्वारा उदघोषित

निर्णय

यह अपील, उपभोक्‍ता संरक्षण अधिनियम १९८६ के अन्‍तर्गत जिला फोरम/आयोग, औरैया द्वारा परिवाद सं0-१२५/२००९ में पारित प्रश्‍नगत निर्णय एवं आदेश दिनांक १२-०९-२०१३ के विरूद्ध योजित की गयी है।

अपीलार्थी द्वारा यह अपील विलम्‍ब से प्रस्‍तुत की गई है ओर उसने विलम्‍ब को क्षमा करने के लिए अपना प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांकित ०३-०९-२०१४ शपथ पत्र के साथ दिया है जिसके विरूद्ध आपत्ति प्रत्‍यर्थी की ओर से की गई।

हमने उभय पक्ष के विद्वान अधिवक्‍तागण की बहस सुनी तथा पत्रावली का सम्‍यक रूप से अवलोकन किया।

-२-

अपीलार्थी ने विलम्‍ब क्षमा प्रार्थना पत्र के साथ संलग्‍न शपथ पत्र में कहा है कि वाद का निर्णय दिनांक १२-०९-२०१३ को हुआ था जो एक पक्षीय था। शपथी के पेनल के अधिवक्‍ता श्री रवीन्‍द्र कुमार पाण्‍डेय ने बसूली कार्यवाही के विषय में सूचना दी और तब अपीलार्थी ने निर्णय की सत्‍य प्रतिलिपि निकलवाने को कहा जो उसे दिनांक १५-०१-२०१४ को प्राप्‍त हुई। इसके पश्‍चात् यह निर्णय कार्यालय की त्रुटियुक्‍त कार्यवाही के कारण कई स्‍थानों से होता हुआ कृषि विभाग में प्राप्‍त हुआ। फिर वहॉं से निकलवाकर अधिवक्‍ता महोदय को भेजा गया। अपील के लिए बैंक ड्राफ्ट तैयार करने और अन्‍तत: अपील प्रस्‍तुत करने में कुल २३० दिन का विलम्‍ब हो गया जो जानबूझकर नहीं किया गया है। चूँकि सत्‍य प्रतिलिपि दूसरे कार्यालय में चली गई थी इस कारण विलम्‍ब हुआ। अत: विलम्‍ब क्षमा किया जाए।

प्रत्‍यर्थी की ओर से आपत्ति की गई और कहा गया कि जो भी आधार शपथ पत्र में लिए गए हैं वे विश्‍वसनीय और सन्‍तोषजनक नहीं हैं। मा0 सर्वोच्‍च न्‍यायालय और मा0 राष्‍ट्रीय आयोग के निर्णयों में अनावश्‍यक छूट देने को मना किया गया है। अत: ऐसी स्थिति में विलम्‍ब के आधार पर वर्तमान अपील निरस्‍त होने योग्‍य है।

अपीलार्थी ने स्‍वयं स्‍वीकार किया है कि उसे दिनांक १५-०१-२०१४ को निर्णय की नकल प्राप्‍त हो गई थी किन्‍तु यह अपील दिनांक ०३-०९-२०१४ को प्रस्‍तुत की गई। अपील प्रस्‍तुत करने में २३० दिवस का विलम्‍ब हुआ है ओर इस सम्‍बन्‍ध में कहा गया है कि निर्णय की प्रति त्रुटिवश कृषि विभाग में चली गई थी। यह कोई सुसंगत कारण नहीं है। इस मामले में सेण्‍ट्रल बैंक आफ इण्डिया की लापरवाही स्‍पष्‍ट परिलक्षित है कि उन्‍होंने निर्णय की सत्‍य प्रतिलिपि कृषि विभाग में भेज दी और फिर उसे खोजते रहे। अपीलार्थी की लापरवाही और उपेक्षा के कारण ही इस अपील को प्रस्‍तुत करने में २३० दिन का विलम्‍ब हुआ है।

सर्वप्रथम हम उपभोक्‍ता संरक्षण अधिनियम के उद्देश्‍यों पर विचार करते हैं :-

Now before going to the time limit and effect of delay in filing appeal, it is better to understand the object of The Consumer Protection Act.

-३-

The Consumer Protection Act 1986 was enacted to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of Consumers Councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers’ disputes and for matters connected therewith (Preamble).

The Act Inter alia, seeks to promote and protect the rights of consumers such as —

(1) right to be protected against marketing of goods which are hazardous to life and property;
(2) right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices;
(3) right to be assured, wherever possible, access to variety of goods at competitive prices;
(4) right to be heard and to assured that customers’ interests will receive due consideration at appropriate forums.
(5) Right to seek redressal against unfair practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers; and
(6) Right to consumer education

The objects are sought to be promoted and protected by the Consumer Protection Councils to be established at the Central and State levels.

The Act applies to all goods and services, except if otherwise provided by the Central Government by Notification. To provide speedy and simple redressal of consumer disputes, a quasi judicial machinery is set up at the District, State and Central levels. The three tier system of quasi

-४-

judicial bodies will observe the principle of natural justice and are empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation to consumers. Penalties for non-compliance of the orders given by the quasi judicial bodies have also been provided.

Thus the Consumer Protection Act is to serve the interests of the consumers. Consumer education and redressal of consumers’ grievances are the two aspects of the Act. It makes good the loss a consumer suffers and increases the feeling of responsibility of the manufacturer, trader, supplier or businessman.

The provisions of the Act have to be construed in favor of the consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment as it is social benefit oriented legislation. The primary duty of the Court while construing the provisions of such an Act is to adopt a constructive approach subject to that it should not do violence to the language of the provisions and not contrary to attempted objective of the enactment.

Extent of Consumer Protection:

While other legislations may be either punitive or preventive, the Consumer Protection Act compensates the consumer. The provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any law at the time being in force (Sec 3). In Maine Container Services South Pvt Ltd v Go Garments 1998 (3) SCC 247 it has been held that the Contract Act applies to all litigants before the Commissioner under the Consumers Protection Act. Passengers traveling in train suffering injuries and loss of Jewelry as a result of assault by unruly crowd are eligible for filing of complaint before State Commission is maintainable notwithstanding the provisions of sections 100 and 103 of Railways Act, 1889. The Consumer

-५-

Protection Act therefore gives the consumer an additional remedy besides those which may be available under other existing laws. Existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement is no bar to the entertainment of complaint by the Redressal Agency as the remedy under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law. However, the Consumer Forums under the Act have not taken over the jurisdiction of civil Courts. If the dispute between the parties is pending in Civil Court no Consumer Forum will adjudicate the dispute. Similarly if evidence be laid by the parties to the dispute is voluminous or complicated the parties will be referred to the appropriate Civil Court.

Consumers Protection Act, thus enshrines the rights of a consumer to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, price etc., of the goods to be protected against unfair trade practices, to seek inexpensive and expeditious redressal of grievances before the Consumer Forums. Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent piece of legislation to protect a large body of consumers from exploitation.

     इसके पश्‍चात् हम उपभोक्‍ता संरक्षण अधिनियम के उन प्राविधानों को देखते हैं, जिनमें परिवाद और अपील प्रस्‍तुत करने के सम्‍बन्‍ध में धाराऐं हैं। सर्वप्रथम एक परिवाद प्रस्‍तुत करने के सम्‍बन्‍ध में धारा २४ (ए) कहती है :-

 ["24-A. Limitation period- (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may

-६-

be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period;

Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay]

From perusal of the aforesaid section, it transpires that the period of limitation is two years from the date on which the cause of action arose.

अपील प्रस्‍तुत करने के सम्‍बन्‍ध में धारा-१५ में व्‍यवस्‍था को स्‍पष्‍ट करती है जो निम्‍नप्रकार है :-

As far as filing of appeal is concerned the provision is as follows:

“15.       Appeal. — Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed:

Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not finding it within that period.

Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent. of that amount or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less: ”

अब उपभोक्‍ता संरक्षण अधिनियम के उद्देश्‍य और परिवाद तथा अपील प्रस्‍तुत करने के प्राविधानों के सम्‍बन्‍ध में कुछ न्‍यायिक दृष्‍टान्‍तों पर विचार किया जाता है, जो निम्‍नप्रकार है :-

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was pleased to hold in Civil Appeal No.2067 of 2002, State Bank of India vs. M/s B.S. Agricultural

-७-

(I) dated 20.3.2009 at paras 15 and 16 that:

"On its plain averments, the complaint is barred by time and ought to have been dismissed as such but curiously this aspect was not examined by any of the consumer fora although specific plea to this effect was taken by the Bank.

          Since the complaint is barred by time and liable to be dismissed on that count, it would be unnecessary to examine the other grounds of challenge." 

          Considering the totality of the circumstances and view of the provisions contained under Section 24(A) of the C.P. Act and the ruling laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State Bank of India vs. M/s B.S. Agricultural (I), we are of the considered view that the complaint is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed at the admission stage as barred by limitation.

In Anshul Agarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 62 (SC), it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "it is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that special period of limitation has been  prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matter and the objection of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will get defeated if this court was to entertain highly belated petition against the orders of Consumer Fora."

साथ ही साथ यह भी देखना है कि क्‍या समय का महत्‍व अत्‍यधिक है ? इस सम्‍बन्‍ध में उपभोक्‍ता संरक्षण अधिनियम की धारा-१३(२)(ए) के सम्‍बन्‍ध में मानननीय सर्वोच्‍च न्‍यायालय की संविधान पीठ ने अपना निर्णय दिनांक ०४-०३-२०२० द्वारा एक सुस्‍पष्‍ट और विस्‍तृत निर्णय समय के महत्‍व के सम्‍बन्‍ध में दिया है :-  

A Constitutional Bench ( 5 JJ ) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court  In the Case of New India Assurance Complainant Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited , Civil Appeal no 10941 -10942 of 2013 along with

-८-

other many related Civil Appeals( judgement 04.03.2020 ) held ;

“The reference made to this Constitution Bench relates to the grant of time for filing response to a complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’).  

The first question referred is as to whether Section 13(2) (a)   of   the   Consumer   Protection   Act,   which   provides   for   the respondent/opposite party filing its response to the complaint within 30 days or such extended period, not exceeding 15 days, should   be   read   as   mandatory   or   directory;   i.e.,   whether  the District Forum has power to extend the time for filing the response beyond the period of 15 days, in addition to 30 days.

The second question which is referred is as to what would be 5 the commencing point of limitation of 30 days stipulated under the aforesaid Section.

The first question was referred by a two Judges bench of this Court vide an order dated 11.02.2016 passed in Civil Appeal No (s) 10831084 of 2016 , M/S Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs  M/S  Grand Venezia Buyers Association ( Reg), the relevant portion of which is as under :

“there is an apparent conflict between the decision of this Court in Topline Shoes Limited  vs  Corporation Bank [(2002)6 SCC 33], Kailash  vs  Nankhu [(2005)4 SCC 480] , Salem advocate Bar Association VS Union of India [(2005) 6 SCC 344] on the one hand and  J J Merchan  & Ors vs Shrinath Chaturvedi [(2002) 6 SCC 635)] and NIA Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage [ 2014 AIOL 4615] on the other in so far as the power of the courts to extend time for filing of Written Statement/reply to a complaint is concerned. The earlier mentioned line of decision take the view that the relevant provisions including those of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 are directory in nature and the Courts concerned have the power to extend time for filing the written

-९-

statement. The second line of decisions which are also of coordinate Benches however takes a contrary view and hold that when it comes to power of the Consumer Fora to extend the time for filing a reply there is no such power. Since the question that falls for determination here often arises before the Consumer Fora and Commissions all over the country it will be more appropriate if the conflict is resolved by an authoritative judgement. Further since the conflict is between Benches comprising three Judges we deem it fit to refer these appeals to a five – Judge Bench to resolve the conflict once and for all. While we do so we are mindful of the fact that in the ordinary course a two – Judge Bench ought to make a reference

to a three – Judge Bench in the first place but in the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the conflict is between coordinate benches That comprising three Judges a reference to 3 Judges may not suffice”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 41 of the judgement has held :

“ To conclude, we hold that our answer to the first question is that The District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complainant beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as envisaged under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act ; and the answer to the second question is that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complainant by the opposite party and not mere receipt of the notice of the complainant. ”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 40 of the judgement has held :

“………….. we may, however, clarified that the objection of not having received a copy of the complaint along with the notice should be raised on the first date itself and not thereafter, otherwise permitted to

-१०-

be raised at any point later on defeat the very purpose of the Act, which is to provide simple and speedy Redressal of consumer disputes.”

इस सन्‍दर्भ में अब हम प्रश्‍नगत मामले पर विचार करते हैं। उपभोक्‍ता अधिनियम एक विशिष्‍ट अधिनियम है जिसका मूल उद्देश्‍य उपभोक्‍ताओं को त्‍वरित न्‍याय देना है। अपीलार्थी द्वारा विलम्‍ब क्षमा करने के प्रार्थना पत्र में जो आधार बताया गया है वह स्‍वीकार्य नहीं है और दिन-प्रति-दिन के विलम्‍ब का यह उचित और सन्‍तोषजनक स्‍पष्‍टीकरण नहीं है। ऐसी स्थिति में हम इस निष्‍कर्ष पर पहुँचते हैं कि जो भी स्‍पष्‍टीकरण दिया गया है वह न तो युक्ति-युक्‍त है और न ही सन्‍तोषजनक है। अत: उपरोक्‍त परिस्थितियों में वर्तमान अपील उपरोक्‍त न्‍यायिक दृष्‍टान्‍तों के अनुसार कालबाधित होने के आधार पर निरस्‍त होने योग्‍य है। 

आदेश

वर्तमान अपील कालबाधित होने के आधार पर निरस्‍त की जाती है।  

अपील व्‍यय उभय पक्ष पर।

      उभय पक्ष को इस निर्णय की प्रमाणित प्रति नियमानुसार उपलब्‍ध करायी जाय।

      वैयक्तिक सहायक से अपेक्षा की जाती है कि वह इस निर्णय को आयोग की वेबसाइट पर नियमानुसार यथाशीघ्र अपलोड कर दें।

                 (विकास सक्‍सेना)                (राजेन्‍द्र सिंह)

                     सदस्‍य                         सदस्‍य                    

निर्णय आज खुले न्‍यायालय में हस्‍ताक्षरित, दिनांकित होकर उद्घोषित किया गया।

                (विकास सक्‍सेना)                (राजेन्‍द्र सिंह)

                     सदस्‍य                         सदस्‍य                    

प्रमोद कुमार

वैय0सहा0ग्रेड-१,

कोर्ट नं.-३.