RTI under CPA – Intepretations of Supreme Court Judgments
National Seeds Corpn. Ltd Vs Madhsudhan Reddy & anr
21. Sec. 3 declares that provisions Consumer Act shall be in addition to & not in derogation of provisions of any other law for time being in force. Sec. 9 provides for establishment of Consumer Forums at Dist., State & National level. Sec. 11 relates to jurisdiction of Dist. Forum. Sec. 12 prescribed manner in which complaint can be filed before Dist. Forum & procedure required to be followed for entertaining same. Once complaint is admitted, procedure prescribed u/s 13 is required to be followed by Dist. Forum. Sub-section (1) of Sec 13, which lays down procedure to be followed after admission of complaint reads as under:
13. Procedure on admission of complaint. - (1) Dist. Forum shall, on admission of a complaint, if it relates to any goods,--
(a) refer a copy of admitted complaint, within twenty-one days from date of its admission to OP mentioned in complaint directing him to give his version of case within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by District Forum;
(b) where OP party on receipt of a complaint referred to him under clause (a) denies or disputes allegations contained in complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within time given by Dist. Forum, it shall proceed to settle dispute in manner specified in clauses (c) to (g);
(c) where complaint alleges a defect in goods which cant b determined without proper analysis or test of goods, Dist. Forum shall obtain a sample of goods from complainant, seal it & authenticate it in manner prescribed & refer sample so sealed to appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in complaint or from any other defect & to report its findings thereon to Dist. Forum within a period of 45days of receipt of reference or within such extended period as may be granted by Dist. Forum;
(d) before any sample of goods is referred to any appropriate laboratory under clause (c), Dist. Fora may require complainant to deposit to Cr. of Forum such fees as may be specified, for payment to appropriate laboratory for carrying out necessary analysis or test in relation to goods in question;
(e) Dist. Forum shall remit amt. deposited to its Cr. under clause (d) to appropriate laboratory to enable it to carry out analysis or test mentioned in clause(c) & on receipt of report from appro- priate lab., Dist. Forum shall forward a copy of report along with such remarks as Dist. Forum may feel appropriate to OP;
(f) if any of parties disputes correctness of findings of appropriate lab., or disputes correctness of methods of analysis or test adopted by appropriate lab., Dist. Fora shall require OP or complainant to submit in writing his objections in regard to the report made by the appropriate laboratory;
(g) the District Forum shall thereafter give a reasonable opportunity to complainant as well as OP of being heard as to the correctness or otherwise of report made by appropriate laboratory and also as to the objection made in relation thereto under clause (f) and issue an appropriate order u/s 14.
22. The scope & reach of Consumer Act has been considered in large number of judgments - Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. v. N. K. Modi (supra), Skypay Couriers Limited v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (2000) 5 SCC 294, State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Cooperative Society (supra), CCI Chambers Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. Dev. Cr. Bank Ltd. (supra), Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agr. Cr. Society v. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305, H.N. Shankara Shastry v. Assistant Director of Agri., Karnataka (2004) 6 SCC 230 and Trans Mediterranean Airways v. Universal Exports & anr (2011) 10 SCC 316. However, we do not consider it necessary to discuss all judgments & it will be sufficient to notice some passages from the judgment in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agri. Cr. Society v. M. Lalitha (supra). In that case, 2-Judge Bench noticed the background, objects and reasons, & purpose for which Consumer Act was enacted, referred to judgments in Lucknow Dev. Authority v. M. K. Gupta (supra), Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. N. K. Modi (supra) and proceeded to observe as under:
The preamble of Act declares that it is an Act to provide for better protection of interest of consumers & for that purpose to make provision for establishment of Consumer Councils & other authorities for settlement of consumer disputes & matters connected therewith. In Sec. 3 of Act in clear & unambiguous terms it is stated that provisions of 1986 Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of provisions of any other law for time being in force.
From Statement of Objects & Reasons & scheme of 1986 Act, it is apparent that main objective of Act is to provide for better protection of interest of consumer & for that purpose to provide for better redressal, mechanism through which cheaper, easier, expeditious & effective redressal is made available to consumers. To serve purpose of Act, various quasi- judicial forums are set up at dist., State & national level with wide range of powers vested in them. These quasi-judicial forums, observing principles of natural justice, are empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation to consumers & to impose penalties for non-compliance with their orders.
23.It can thus be said that in context of farmers/growers and other consumer of seeds, the Seeds Act is a special legislation insofar as provisions contained therein ensure that those engaged in agriculture & horticulture get quality seeds and any person who violates provisions of Act and/or tules is brought before law & punished. However, there is no provision in that Act and Rules framed thereunder for compensating farmers etc. who may suffer adversely due to loss of crop or deficient yield on account of defective seeds supplied by a person authorised to sell seeds. That apart, there is nothing in Seeds Act & Rules which may give an indication that provisions of Consumer Act are not available to farmers who are otherwise covered by wide definition of `consumer' u/s 2(d) of Consumer Act. As a matter of fact, any attempt to exclude the farmers from ambit of Consumer Act by implication will make that Act vulnerable to an attack of unconstitutionality on ground of discrimination & there is no reason why provisions of Consumer Act should be so interpreted.
24. In Kishore Lal v. Chairman, Employees' State Insurance Corporation (2007) 4 SCC 579, this Court was called upon to consider the question whether a person (appellant) who got his wife treated in ESI dispensary could file a complaint under the Consumer Act for award of compensation by alleging negligence on the part of the doctors in the dispensary. The District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission declined relief to the appellant on the ground that the medical services provided in ESI dispensary were gratituous. This Court referred to Ss. 74 and 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, the definition of the `consumer' contained in Sec. 2(d) of the Consumer Act, referred to judgments in Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia (1998) 4 SCC 39, State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Cooperative Society (supra), Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (supra) & observed:
The trend of decisions of this Court is that jurisdiction of Consumer Forum should not & would not be curtailed unless there is an express provision prohibiting Consumer Forum to take up matter which falls within jurisdiction of civil court or any other forum as established under some enactment. Court had gone to extent of saying that if 2different fora have jurisdiction to entertain dispute in regard to same subject, jurisdiction of Consumer Fora wouldnt b barred & power of Consumer Fora to adjudicate upon dispute couldnt be negated
Kishore Lal Vs CM, ESIC
17. It has been held in numerous cases of this Court that jurisdiction of a consumer forum has to be construed liberally so as to bring many cases under it for their speedy disposal. In case of M/s. Spring Meadows Hospital and Another v. Harjol Ahluwalia and Another, AIR 1998 SC 1801, it was held that CP Act creates a framework for speedy disposal of consumer disputes and an attempt has been made to remove existing evils of ordinary court system. Act being a beneficial legislation should receive a liberal construction. In State of Karnataka v. Vishwabarathi House Building Co-op. Society & Ors, AIR 2003 SC 1043, Court speaking on jurisdiction of consumer fora held that provisions of said Act are required to be interpreted as broadly as possible & fora under CP Act have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint despite fact that other fora/courts would also have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon lis. These judgments have been cited with approval in paras 16&17 of judgment in Secty, Tirumurugan Cooperative Agri Cr. Society v. M. Lalitha and Others, (2004) 1 SCC 305. The trend of decisions of this Court is that jurisdiction of Consumer Forum should not & would not be curtailed unless there is an express provision prohibiting Consumer Forum to take up matter which falls within jurisdiction of civil court or any other forum as established under some enactment. Court had gone to extent of saying that if 2different fora have jurisdiction to entertain dispute in regard to same subject, jurisdiction of Consumer Fora wouldnt b barred & power of Consumer Fora to adjudicate upon dispute couldnt be negated
National Seeds Corpn. Ltd Vs Madhsudhan Reddy & anr
21. Sec. 3 declares that provisions Consumer Act shall be in addition to & not in derogation of provisions of any other law for time being in force. Sec. 9 provides for establishment of Consumer Forums at Dist., State & National level. Sec. 11 relates to jurisdiction of Dist. Forum. Sec. 12 prescribed manner in which complaint can be filed before Dist. Forum & procedure required to be followed for entertaining same. Once complaint is admitted, procedure prescribed u/s 13 is required to be followed by Dist. Forum. Sub-section (1) of Sec 13, which lays down procedure to be followed after admission of complaint reads as under:
13. Procedure on admission of complaint. - (1) Dist. Forum shall, on admission of a complaint, if it relates to any goods,--
(a) refer a copy of admitted complaint, within twenty-one days from date of its admission to OP mentioned in complaint directing him to give his version of case within a period of 30 days or such extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by District Forum;
(b) where OP party on receipt of a complaint referred to him under clause (a) denies or disputes allegations contained in complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within time given by Dist. Forum, it shall proceed to settle dispute in manner specified in clauses (c) to (g);
(c) where complaint alleges a defect in goods which cant b determined without proper analysis or test of goods, Dist. Forum shall obtain a sample of goods from complainant, seal it & authenticate it in manner prescribed & refer sample so sealed to appropriate laboratory along with a direction that such laboratory make an analysis or test, whichever may be necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect alleged in complaint or from any other defect & to report its findings thereon to Dist. Forum within a period of 45days of receipt of reference or within such extended period as may be granted by Dist. Forum;
(d) before any sample of goods is referred to any appropriate laboratory under clause (c), Dist. Fora may require complainant to deposit to Cr. of Forum such fees as may be specified, for payment to appropriate laboratory for carrying out necessary analysis or test in relation to goods in question;
(e) Dist. Forum shall remit amt. deposited to its Cr. under clause (d) to appropriate laboratory to enable it to carry out analysis or test mentioned in clause(c) & on receipt of report from appro- priate lab., Dist. Forum shall forward a copy of report along with such remarks as Dist. Forum may feel appropriate to OP;
(f) if any of parties disputes correctness of findings of appropriate lab., or disputes correctness of methods of analysis or test adopted by appropriate lab., Dist. Fora shall require OP or complainant to submit in writing his objections in regard to the report made by the appropriate laboratory;
(g) the District Forum shall thereafter give a reasonable opportunity to complainant as well as OP of being heard as to the correctness or otherwise of report made by appropriate laboratory and also as to the objection made in relation thereto under clause (f) and issue an appropriate order u/s 14.
22. The scope & reach of Consumer Act has been considered in large number of judgments - Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. v. N. K. Modi (supra), Skypay Couriers Limited v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (2000) 5 SCC 294, State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Cooperative Society (supra), CCI Chambers Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. Dev. Cr. Bank Ltd. (supra), Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agr. Cr. Society v. M. Lalitha (2004) 1 SCC 305, H.N. Shankara Shastry v. Assistant Director of Agri., Karnataka (2004) 6 SCC 230 and Trans Mediterranean Airways v. Universal Exports & anr (2011) 10 SCC 316. However, we do not consider it necessary to discuss all judgments & it will be sufficient to notice some passages from the judgment in Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agri. Cr. Society v. M. Lalitha (supra). In that case, 2-Judge Bench noticed the background, objects and reasons, & purpose for which Consumer Act was enacted, referred to judgments in Lucknow Dev. Authority v. M. K. Gupta (supra), Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. N. K. Modi (supra) and proceeded to observe as under:
The preamble of Act declares that it is an Act to provide for better protection of interest of consumers & for that purpose to make provision for establishment of Consumer Councils & other authorities for settlement of consumer disputes & matters connected therewith. In Sec. 3 of Act in clear & unambiguous terms it is stated that provisions of 1986 Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of provisions of any other law for time being in force.
From Statement of Objects & Reasons & scheme of 1986 Act, it is apparent that main objective of Act is to provide for better protection of interest of consumer & for that purpose to provide for better redressal, mechanism through which cheaper, easier, expeditious & effective redressal is made available to consumers. To serve purpose of Act, various quasi- judicial forums are set up at dist., State & national level with wide range of powers vested in them. These quasi-judicial forums, observing principles of natural justice, are empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation to consumers & to impose penalties for non-compliance with their orders.
23.It can thus be said that in context of farmers/growers and other consumer of seeds, the Seeds Act is a special legislation insofar as provisions contained therein ensure that those engaged in agriculture & horticulture get quality seeds and any person who violates provisions of Act and/or tules is brought before law & punished. However, there is no provision in that Act and Rules framed thereunder for compensating farmers etc. who may suffer adversely due to loss of crop or deficient yield on account of defective seeds supplied by a person authorised to sell seeds. That apart, there is nothing in Seeds Act & Rules which may give an indication that provisions of Consumer Act are not available to farmers who are otherwise covered by wide definition of `consumer' u/s 2(d) of Consumer Act. As a matter of fact, any attempt to exclude the farmers from ambit of Consumer Act by implication will make that Act vulnerable to an attack of unconstitutionality on ground of discrimination & there is no reason why provisions of Consumer Act should be so interpreted.
24. In Kishore Lal v. Chairman, Employees' State Insurance Corporation (2007) 4 SCC 579, this Court was called upon to consider the question whether a person (appellant) who got his wife treated in ESI dispensary could file a complaint under the Consumer Act for award of compensation by alleging negligence on the part of the doctors in the dispensary. The District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission declined relief to the appellant on the ground that the medical services provided in ESI dispensary were gratituous. This Court referred to Ss. 74 and 75 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, the definition of the `consumer' contained in Sec. 2(d) of the Consumer Act, referred to judgments in Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia (1998) 4 SCC 39, State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Cooperative Society (supra), Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (supra) & observed:
The trend of decisions of this Court is that jurisdiction of Consumer Forum should not & would not be curtailed unless there is an express provision prohibiting Consumer Forum to take up matter which falls within jurisdiction of civil court or any other forum as established under some enactment. Court had gone to extent of saying that if 2different fora have jurisdiction to entertain dispute in regard to same subject, jurisdiction of Consumer Fora wouldnt b barred & power of Consumer Fora to adjudicate upon dispute couldnt be negated
Kishore Lal Vs CM, ESIC
17. It has been held in numerous cases of this Court that jurisdiction of a consumer forum has to be construed liberally so as to bring many cases under it for their speedy disposal. In case of M/s. Spring Meadows Hospital and Another v. Harjol Ahluwalia and Another, AIR 1998 SC 1801, it was held that CP Act creates a framework for speedy disposal of consumer disputes and an attempt has been made to remove existing evils of ordinary court system. Act being a beneficial legislation should receive a liberal construction. In State of Karnataka v. Vishwabarathi House Building Co-op. Society & Ors, AIR 2003 SC 1043, Court speaking on jurisdiction of consumer fora held that provisions of said Act are required to be interpreted as broadly as possible & fora under CP Act have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint despite fact that other fora/courts would also have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon lis. These judgments have been cited with approval in paras 16&17 of judgment in Secty, Tirumurugan Cooperative Agri Cr. Society v. M. Lalitha and Others, (2004) 1 SCC 305. The trend of decisions of this Court is that jurisdiction of Consumer Forum should not & would not be curtailed unless there is an express provision prohibiting Consumer Forum to take up matter which falls within jurisdiction of civil court or any other forum as established under some enactment. Court had gone to extent of saying that if 2different fora have jurisdiction to entertain dispute in regard to same subject, jurisdiction of Consumer Fora wouldnt b barred & power of Consumer Fora to adjudicate upon dispute couldnt be negated
