Consumer Rights and Cases

Introduction

Ronald Dworkin in his book "Taking Rights Seriously" wrote that "individual rights are political trumps held by individuals." [Harvard University Press, 1977]

The article is a narration of how consumers have been able to assert their rights through laws.

Here is a short presentation of some useful points while dealing with cases under Consumer Protection Act.

In Puneet Singla v United Ltd [2019] GCtR 2833 (NCDRC) the case against property seller was allowed.

In Paramount Villas v Rohit Srivastava [2019] GCtR 4426 (NCDRC) the appeal against Order of SCDRC was allowed and direction was issued to SCDRC for time bound disposal.

In ARCIL v Mohammed Yagup [2019] GCtR 4427 (NCDRC), the Order of SCDRC was found correct and the petition challenging the Order of SCDRC was rejected pointing out the scope of interference and its extent.

In Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd v Rohtash Saini [2019] GCtR 4428 (NCDRC), insurer thought of challenging the Order of SCDRC. The challenge made by insurer was rejected and it was explained when terms and conditions of insurance policy do not stand violated.

Post Offices cannot claim themselves above law ; nor employees of Post Offices can believe so. In Post Office, HPO v Rasendubhai Shantilal Parekh [2019] GCtR 4429 (NCDRC), the Order passed against Post Office was upheld and the manner of conducting its activities by employees of Post Office also got exposed.

Frivolous appeals need to be dismissed with sufficient imposition of costs. In Dr. Swaroop Gopal v Goli Venkateshwar Rao [2019] GCtR 4430 (NCDRC), the appeal was dismissed and costs was also imposed. It was held that "object of the Consumer Protection Act is to dispose of the matter summarily."

Prolonging a case is an old ploy. In K.P. Asewal v Dwarika Project Ltd [2019] GCtR 4431 (NCDRC) this ploy was nipped in the bud. It was held that "when a case is called for hearing and the party is repeatedly not present, the court is under no obligation to keep the matter pending indefinitely.Consumer Courts should not waste time in hearing matters pending endlessly, which otherwise can be put to proper use in other cases that are genuine and require speedy disposal. The very purpose of constituting Consumer Courts gets defeated, if parties are encouraged to prolong litigation."

SBI is a public sector bank whose employees thrive on public money being spent on luxurious facilities for SBI's employees; but whether customer service is its goal ? One can do some fact-check by going through State Bank of India v Sushma Goyal [2019] GCtR 4432 (NCDRC) where an innocent Indian customer was forced to opt for litigation due to actions of SBI. It was held that "in Revision Petition it is not permitted to reappreciate or reconsider the evidences and reach to a different conclusion."

It is a matter of common knowledge that if an insurance claim is paid then it affects the personal financial benefits of some employees of insurance company. So, many specific employees of United India Insurance Company know that if they pay a genuine insurance claim, then some employees who are supposed to bring premium but unable to bring premium or too lazy to bring premium then those employees of United India Insurance Company may not get personal financial benefits for themselves. In Sona Agencies v Canara Bank [2019] GCtR 4433 (NCDRC), the so called public services by a loss making government general insurance company got exposed. In that case, a genuine insurance claim was repudiated by some employees of this loss making insurance company. This forced the customer to go to long drawn process of litigation. It was held that "act of the Insurance Company in issuing the policy at the office address and not inspecting the location even once, prior to the issuance of the policy, and also repeatedly renewing them at the very same office address, amounts to deficiency in service and is also contrary to the regulations laid down by the IRDA, specially in the light of the fact that the policies were meant to cover the risk of stocks which are obviously kept at the godowns and not at the office premises." Due to wrong actions of some employees of this insurance company in this case, customer has to take trouble of litigation and huge financial loss of public money also occurred because if that claim was not repudiated by those employees of this government general insurance Company, then the interest liability could have been avoided.

Conclusion

While there is still a long way to go for real consumer rights in India, yet some distance has been travelled. A journey starts when we begin.

For real estate companies and airlines company , the rare use of S.72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by consumer fora across India serves as a blessings for cash-rich real estate companies and becomes a curse for innocent Indian customers.

Hope something positive emerges.