CITATION | MANU/CF/0219/2014, 2014 SCC OnLine NCDRC 316 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT | MAY 5, 2014 |
COURT | STATE COMMISSION |
APPELLANT | M/S AUVA GAS AGENCY THROUGH: MR PAUL ROLUAHPUIA VAIRENGTE, KOLASIB DISTRICT MIZORAM |
RESPONDENT | CONSUMER UNION VAIRENGTE SOUTH BRANCH KOLASIB DISTRICT MIZORAM |
BENCH | V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER AND REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER |
FACTS
On 22nd, the President of the District Forum Kolasib District received a formal complaint from the Consumer Union, Vietnamte South Branch defendant herein against the petitioner, M/s Auva Gas Agency, Vairengte, in August 2012. To bolster their grievance, the complainant/respondent provided authentic complaints from forty-two disgruntled customers. The complaint included the following points.The following are examples of poor quality items given: (i) excessive cost for a new LPG connection; (ii) non-issuance of a receipt by the agency; (iv) non-gas lighter delivered; etc. swap with new ones. After accepting the complaint, the District Forum issued the following ruling on December 7, 2012☹i) Within a month of the judgement and order’s issuance, the respondent, M/s Auva Gas Agency, Vairengte, is required to reimburse each current customer for the excessive price that was collected from them, for the amount of Rs. 770; (ii) Within the same month, the complainants, Consumer Union, Vairengte South Branch, are entitled to reimbursement for the transportation costs of fourteen individuals, at the rate of Rs. 140, for travel to and from Kolasib. (iii) When establishing a new connection or during any other interaction with a client, the responder must provide receipts to each one; (iv) The respondent must replace or repair any defective items they provide at no cost to the consumer. They must furthermore guarantee that the The materials that are provided are of high grade (quality guaranteed), etc. Disappointed with the District Forum’s ruling, the petitioner/appellant appealed to the State Commission. A separate application for a pardon of delay was filed with the appeal, but it was denied.
ISSUES
Whether the State Commission was justified in dismissing the appeal?
IN DISTRICT FORUM IT WAS CONTENDED
THE COMPLAINT MADE REFERENCE TO THE FOLLOWING POINTS.
(i) An excessive fee for a new LPG connection;
(ii) The agency failing to give a receipt;
(iii) Subpar products provided;
(iv) There is no petrol lighter provided;
(v) The items provided do not have MRP printed on them;
(vi) An excessive fee of Rs. 300 for misplacing a green card; and
(vii) Even with green cards, relatives of customers from the Saipum and Saiphai region are not allowed to purchase LPG.
RESPONDENT MADE REFERENCE TO THE FOLLOWING POINTS.
(i) Giving all customers a refund of the extra money that the opposing party obtained;
(ii) The cost of the petitioner or opposing party’s appearance before the District Forum, both material and financial;
(iii) All customers will get a payment of Rs. 200 as reimbursement for mental suffering; and
(iv) The petitioner or opposing party shall pay any other costs incurred by the Consumers Union leaders.
DISTRICT FORUM INTENDED
The Auva Gas Agency in Vairengte is required to refund Rs.770/- to existing customers for excessive prices collected on consumer cards within one month of the judgment and order. Additionally, the agency must pay Rs.1960/- to the Consumer Union, Vairengte South Branch, covering the travelling expenses of 14 persons to and from Kolasib within a month. The agency must issue receipts to customers for new connections and transactions. The agency must repair defective materials free of cost or exchange them with new ones, ensuring quality assurance. The agency must also sell LPG to consumer representatives on consumer cards and letters of representation, never selling at prices exceeding the MRP or collecting charges higher than IOC guidelines. Failure to pay within the stipulated time will result in 12% per annum interest.
STATE COMMISSION
The State Commission failed to recognize that a minimal delay of 15 days did not warrant dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner, especially when the delay was unintentional and bona fide. The Act is a benevolent legislation that must be construed strictly to ensure substantial justice for the Consumer Forum in every individual case.
The State Commission ignored the principle that procedural law, particularly regarding statutory limitation periods, should be interpreted liberally, especially when such delays are unintentional and bona fide. Procedural laws are subservient to substantive law, and procedural irregularities, even minor ones, must give way to substantial justice.
The State Commission also ignored the proposition that a party to the litigation cannot be punished or made to suffer due to a fault or inadvertent error on the part of their counsel. The application for condonation of delay, being State Consumer (Misc) No. 1 of 2013, was inadvertent and a bona fides error of the then counsel for the petitioner, who was only one year into the profession.
The petitioner’s appeal was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, which the local counsel drafted in the mistaken belief that the delay in filing the appeal was 15 days. The period of limitation would commence from the date of receipt of the order, not from the date of pronouncement of the order. Therefore, there was a delay of merely five days in filing the appeal, not fifteen days as argued by the counsel in the court.
The counsel for the petitioner failed to provide any evidence regarding the date they received the District Forum order dated 17.12.2012. The application for condonation of delay before the State Commission was vague, with no date-wise justification and only stating that the instant appeal could not be filed within 30 days due to undue circumstances. The application did not mention the number of days of delay, which was stated to be five days, whereas the State Commission noted a delay of 15 days. The counsel argued that the litigant cannot suffer due to the error of its counsel, but the role of the counsel’s counsel or contribution to the delay was not mentioned in the application for condonation.
JUDGEMENT
As a result, the two For a listed below have issued a thorough and well-reasoned ruling that does not require any intervention and is free from any defects, erroneous jurisdictional exercises, or substantial irregularities.
As a result, the current revision petition is thus dismissed, and the filing fee is waived (Rs. 5,000/-). Within four weeks of today, the petitioner is required to submit the cost by demand draft made out to the “Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.” The petitioner will be required to pay interest at the rate of nine percent per year until realisation if it does not deposit the stated cost within the allotted time.
REFERENCE: https://clap.nls.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/clapjantojune2014.pdf
SCC ONLINE
This Article is written by Ananya Purwar student of Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
