It is stated by proxy counsel that Mr. Vikas Mehta, Advocate for respondent is busy in Supreme Court. After perusal of the record, it transpires that Mr. Vikas Mehta, Advocate for respondent has not appeared before this Commission since respondent has put his appearance for the first time on 31.10.2012 through his counsel. Previous adjournment cost of Rs. 5,000/- has not been deposited by the respondent. Under these circumstances, defence of respondent stand struck off and his right to argue the matter also stand struck off. Arguments heard. Order after lunch. Brief facts of this case are that Respondent/ Complainant had purchased a “New Generation Manual Water Filter” from Petitioners/Opposite Parties, for a sum of Rs.30,800/- on 20.11.2002. The said filter was installed on 18.01.2003. Within 16 months of its installation, in May, 2004 respondent found defects in the Filter and approached the petitioners to rectify the defect. On his request, certain parts of the filter were replaced by the petitioners. Thereafter, again there were certain defects which were rectified but thereafter, again some defects continued. Accordingly, respondent requested the petitioners to replace the filter, which they failed to do so. Thereafter, respondent filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum. 3. Consumer Complaint was contested by the petitioners. 4. District Forum vide its order dated 30.06.2007, dismissed the complaint. 5. Being aggrieved, respondent filed appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (for short, ‘state Commission’). The State Commission vide impugned order dated 22.01.2008, allowed the appeal and passed the following directions; “(1) OPs 1 and 2 are directed to refund Rs.30,800/- to the Complainant within two months from today. (2) On receipt of the said amount, the Complainant is directed to hand over the Filter purchased by him to the OPs. (3) OPs 1 and 2 are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant towards the cost of these proceedings. (4) In the event if OPs 1 and 2 fail to pay the said amounts within the period stipulated above, OPs 1 and 2 shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the said sum from the date of filing the Complaint before the District Forum till realization”. 6. Hence, this petition. 7. Today at the time of hearing, Sh.Narhari Singh, proxy counsel on behalf of Sh.Vikas Mehta, Advocate for respondent appeared and stated, that arguing counsel is busy in Supreme Court. After perusal of the record, it transpired that Sh.Vikas Mehta,Advocate has not appeared before this Commission after respondent had put in appearance for the first time on 31.10.2012. Moreover, previous adjournment cost of Rs.5,000/- imposed upon the respondent on 17.07.2014 had also not been deposited. Under these circumstances, right to argue on behalf of the respondent was struck off. 8. The main contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that as per respondent’s case, defects in the filter occurred only after expiry of the warranty period of one year. Thus, the Consumer Complaint is not maintainable. 9. In its complaint, respondent had nowhere pleaded that there was warranty for one year only. Moreover, petitioners have not placed on record any document to show, that warranty in respect of the Filter was for a period of one year only. 10. Be that as it may, since paltry sum of Rs.40,000/- (approximately) only, is involved in this litigation and this is pending for more than seven years, hence, we are not inclined to entertain this petition, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in “Gurgaon Gramin Bank Vs. Khazani and Another, IV (2012) CPJ 5(SC), where it was observed; "2. Number of litigations in our country is on the rise, for small and trivial matters, people and sometimes Central and State Governments and their instrumentalities Banks, nationalized or private, come to courts may be due to ego clash or to save the Officers’ skin. Judicial system is over-burdened, naturally causes delay in adjudication of disputes. Mediation centers opened in various parts of our country have, to some extent, eased the burden of the courts but we are still in the tunnel and the light is far away. On more than one occasion, this court has reminded the Central Government, State Governments and other instrumentalities as well as to the various banking institutions to take earnest efforts to resolve the disputes at their end. At times, some give and take attitude should be adopted or both will sink. Unless, serious questions of law of general importance arise for consideration or a question which affects large number of persons or the stakes are very high, Courts jurisdiction cannot be invoked for resolution of small and trivial matters. We are really disturbed by the manner in which those types of matters are being brought to courts even at the level of Supreme Court of India and this case falls in that category.” The Apex Court further held; “10. The Chief Manager stated in the affidavit that no bill was raised by the counsel for the bank for conducting the matter before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. We have not been told how much money has been spent by the bank officers for their to and fro journeys to the lawyers’ office, to the District Forum, State Forum, National Commission and to the Supreme Court. For a paltry amount of Rs.15000/-,even according to the affidavit, bank has already spent a total amount of Rs.12, 950/- leaving aside the time spent and other miscellaneous expenses spent by the officers of the bank for to and fro expenses etc.Further, it may be noted that the District Forum had awarded Rs.3,000/-towards cost of litigation and compensation for the harassment caused to Smt. Khazani. Adding this amount, the cost goes up to Rs.15,950/-. Remember, the buffalo had died 10 years back, but the litigation is not over, fight is still on for Rs.15,000/-. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the bank, Shri Amit Grover, submitted that though the amount involved is not very high but the claim was fake and on inspection by the insurance company, no tag was found on the dead body of the buffalo and hence the insurer was not bound to make good the loss, consequently the bank had to proceed against Smt.Khazani. 12. We are of the view that issues raised before us are purely questions of facts examined by the three forums including the National Disputes Redressal Commission and we fail to see what is the important question of law to be decided by the Supreme Court. In our view, these types of litigation should be discouraged and message should also go, otherwise for all trivial and silly matters people will rush to this court. 13. Gramin Bank like the appellant should stand for the benefit of the gramins who sometimes avail of loan for buying buffaloes, to purchase agricultural implements, manure, seeds and so on. Repayment, to a large extent, depends upon the income which they get out of that. Crop failure, due to drought or natural calamities, disease to cattle or their death may cause difficulties to gramins to repay the amount. Rather than coming to their rescue, banks often drive them to litigation leading them extreme penury. Assuming that the bank is right, but once an authority like District Forum takes a view, the bank should graciously accept it rather than going in for further litigation and even to the level of Supreme Court. Driving poor gramins to various litigative forums should be strongly deprecated because they have also to spend large amounts for conducting litigation. We condemn this type of practice, unless the stake is very high or the matter affects large number of persons or affects a general policy of the Bank which has far reaching consequences. 14. We, in this case, find no error in the decisions taken by all fact finding authorities including the National Disputes Redressal Commission. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the bank to the first respondent within a period of one month. Resultantly, the Bank now has to spend altogether Rs.25,950/- for a claim of Rs.15,000/-,apart from to and fro travelling expenses of the Bank officials. Let God save the Gramins.” 11. Above quoted judgment is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Since, paltry amount of Rs.40,000/-(approximately) only is involved, in this case, therefore we are not inclined to entertain this petition. However, question of law raised in this petition, is kept open to be decided in an appropriate case where the stakes are high. 12. With these observations, the present petition stand disposed of. 13. No order as to cost. 14. Dasti. |
