PROJECT REPORT

SUMMER INTERNSHIP (MAY-JUNE 2017)

MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, BHOPAL, M.P.

Submitted By- Amit Kumar Verma

(NLIU, Bhopal)
 Short Notes

1.Farmer as a consumer

The moment a person comes into this world, he starts consuming. He needs clothes, milk, oil,
soap, water, and many more things and these needs keep taking one form or the other all along
his life. Thus we all are consumers in the literal sense of the term. When we approach the market
as a consumer, we expect value for money, i.e., right quality, right quantity, right prices,
information about the mode of use, etc. But there may be instances where a consumer is harassed
or cheated. The Government understood the need to protect consumers from unscrupulous
suppliers, and several laws have been made for this purpose. We have the Indian Contract Act,
the Sale of Goods Act, the Dangerous Drugs Act, the Agricultural Produce (Grading and
Marketing) Act, the Indian Standards Institution (Certification Marks) Act, the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act, the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, etc. which to some extent
protect consumer interests. However, these laws require the consumer to initiate action by way of
a civil suit involving lengthy legal process which is very expensive and time consuming.

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted to provide a simpler and quicker access to
redressal of consumer grievances. The Act for the first time introduced the concept of consumer
and conferred express additional rights on him. It is interesting to note that the Act doesnt seek
to protect every consumer within the literal meaning of the term. The protection is meant for the
person who fits in the definition of consumer given by the Act.

Now the question is- who may be legally called as a consumer?

Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act says that consumer means any person who
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly
promised, or under any system of deferred payment, and includes any user of such goods other
than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly
promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of
such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any
commercial purpose or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly
paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, and includes any beneficiary
of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid
or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when
such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person.

Is Farmer a consumer?

Of late reports of suicide by farmers due to crop failure are making headlines. It is alleged that
farmers, unable to withstand failure of crops due to defective seeds, adulterated pesticides and
spurious fertilizers, have gone to the extent of committing suicide. Can such farmers, who have
suffered loss, approach Consumer Forums for relief? Are they eligible for compensation? Even
after 15 years of its enactment, the Consumer Protection Act is silent on the question whether a
farmer is a consumer. This is because the CPA does not include grievances arising out of
commercial transactions and whether agriculture is a commercial transaction depends on facts of
each case. The National Commission has indicated certain principles to be applied while
deciding disputes relating to agriculture. For instance, if the land holing of a farmer is small and
all his income from agriculture is used for his livelihood, he can be considered as a consumer.
Secondly if there is no profit motive in his agricultural activity, he should be treated as a
consumer. Can a farmer who grows commercial crops, though on a small scale, approach the
consumer forum for defective seedlings? In a recent case the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission has decided that growers of commercial crops cannot be considered as
consumers as per the provisions pf CPA. In this case Mr. C.P.Belliappa, an agriculturalist had
purchased 2000 tissue culture cardamom plants from M/S Indo American Hybreed Seeds,
Bangalore. He had relied on the brochures published by the company which promised that the
seedlings are classy and the seedlings were raised from high yielding clones and there would be
multifold increase in unit productivity. However to the misfortune of Mr Belliappa, the crop
failed. All the flattering claims proved totally false. It was proved by Belliappa that the plants
raised in his own nursery showed robust growth while those raised from tissue culture plants
were frail and weak. The yield from tissue culture plants was just 40% of what he could get from
plants grown in his own nursery. But he could not succeed in his attempt for the simple reason
that the complaint was not maintainable. Apart from other reasons, the hybrid company argued
that the complaint is not maintainable as the agriculturalist is not a consumer. It said that he had
purchased cardamom plantlets for commercial purposes. It said that the farmer has chosen to mix
two crops in cultivation namely cardamom and coffee, which are diametrically opposed to each
other. Relying on the judgment of the National Commission in the case of Laxmi Engineering
Works vs. PSG Industrial Institute, the state commission has decided that the farmer is not a
consumer. In this case it was decided that whenever a person carries on his business on a large
scale he cannot be treated as a consumer. If the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for
the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment such purchaser is yet a
consumer. For example, if a person purchases an auto rickshaw to ply it himself on hire for
earning his livelihood, he would be a consumer. But if he employs several drivers or assistants, it
would be a commercial purpose. Observing the fact that the farmer, in the present case, has not
mentioned anything about the nature and extent of his profession it said that he is not growing
cardamom for his livelihood or this was not his self-employment. The fact that he is growing
coffee also indicates that Mr Beelliappa is carrying on agriculture for profit. The farmer had
purchased 2,000 plantlets which is an indication that it is not for livelihood but for commercial
purposes. The very fact that a commercial crop is grown will be for sale. The commission has
held that the overall picture that freezes out of the material placed on record is that if a person
grows cardamom on a large scale, with considerable labour input, it is for profit and he cannot be
considered a consumer for the purposes of the CPA.

2. Section 24

Section 24A defines the limitation period for filing the complaints under Consumer Protection
Act, 1986. As per the definition, the complaint can be filed with District Forum, State or
National Commission within 2 years from the date of cause of action has arisen, however , sub-
clause (2) of the said provision states that the complaint filed beyond the prescribed period
would be entertained if the Complaint satisfies the Forums, State and National Commissions
with sufficient reason that prevented him from filing within the prescribed period. A provision
is also given mandating the Forum, State Commission, and National commission to record the
reasons for condoning the delay and proceed to entertain such delayed Complaint.
This provision was inserted in the Act in 1993, before that the Consumer Forums were following
the Limitation Act, 1963, which says that a suit can be filed within three years after the cause of
action arises.

The point of time when cause of action arises is an important factor in determining the time
period available to file a complaint. There are no set rules to decide such time. It depends on the
facts and circumstances of each case.

Examples :

1. A got his eye operated by B in 1989. He got a certificate of blindness on 18th December,
1989. He was still in hope of gaining his sight and went from second operation in 1992 and was
discharged on 21-1-1992. He filed a complaint against B on 11-1-1994. B opposed on the ground
that more than 2 years were over after 18-12-1989, thus the complaint is not maintainable. The
Commission held that here the cause of action for filing the complaint would arose after the
second operation when A lost entire hope of recovery. Thus the suit is maintainable - Mukund
Lal Ganguly v. Dr. Abhijit Ghosh III 1995 CPJ 64.

2. A house was allotted on 1-1-1999. Defects appeared in the house on 10-1-1999. Here the
cause of action will arise on 10-1-1999.

It may be noted that these time frames are not absolute limitations. If the Consumer Forum is
satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the prescribed period,
it can entertain a complaint beyond limitation time. However the Forum must record the reasons
for condonation of delay.

Example : A deposited some jewellery with a bank. Bank lost it. Bank kept giving her false sense
of hope to retrieve the jewellery, and thus A was put in a state of inaction. Later on when A filed
a suit on the Bank, it claimed that the suit was not maintainable as the limitation time after the
cause of action arose has lapsed. The Commission reprimanded the bank and admitted the case
- Agnes DMello v. Canara Bank [1992] I CPJ 335 (NCDRC).
The limitation period should be reckoned from the date of cause of action mentioned in the
complaint. The term cause of action is also not defined in the Civil Procedure Code. The
Supreme Court in Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Company-Vs- National Insurance Company and
another III(2009) CPJ 75 SC held that Section 24A of the Act bars any fora set up under the
Act, from admitting a complaint, unless the complaint is filed within two years from the date of
which the cause of action has arisen. Also, Supreme Court stated that there is no definition for
the term cause of action, and therefore, the word cause of action has different meanings in
different contexts i.e, territorial jurisdiction or limitation or the accrual of right to sue. The Apex
court in State Bank of India Vs. B S Agricultural Industries, II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC), held that the
Consumer Forum should necessarily see whether the complaint filed within 2 years from the date
of accrual of cause of action, however, the forum may after recording the reasons may condone
the delay of filing is sufficient cause is shown. The Apex Court in the same judgment held that
it is the duty of the Consumer Forum to take notice of section 24-A and give effect to it. If the
complaint is barred by time and yet, the Consumer Forum decides the complaint on merits, the
Forum would be committing an illegality.

Powers of the District Forum: Act confers the powers to District Forum as that of the powers
vested in Civil Court. All the consumer Forums, District, State Commission and National
Commission are quasi-judicial powers and so they are not required to follow the strict legal
procedures in conducting trials or rules of evidence. Though it is quasi judicial in nature, it has to
follow rules of equity and natural justice, thereby, its proceedings are equal to the judicial
proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of Indian Penal Code. The consumer
forums are deemed to be the civil courts. In addition to these powers, Rule 10 of the Consumer
Protection Rules has given additional powers to the District Forum, State Commission and
National Commission with respect to cause any officer for production of any records, mayu
cause examination of any officer if required, or to furnish the officer if required for any
information from him, or may issue orders of search warrant and for production any books or
documents or commodities before such Forums or Commissions and may authorize any officer
to seize such searched items. The consumer Forum also has power to order retention of
seized articles or return the same.
3. Difference b/w Section 25 & Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act,1986

Section 25- Enforcement of orders of the District Forum, the State Commission or the
National Commission.

(1) Where an interim order made under this Act, is not complied with the District Forum or the
State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, may order the property of
the person, not complying with such order to be attached.

(2) No attachment made under sub-section (1) shall remain in force for more than three months
at the end of which, if the non-compliance continues, the property attached may be sold and out
of the proceeds thereof, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission
may award such damages as it thinks fit to the complainant and shall pay the balance, if any, to
the party entitled thereto.

(3) Where any amount is due from any person under an order made by a
District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, the person
entitled to the amount may make an application to the District Forum, the State Commission or
the National Commission, as the case may be, and such District Forum or the State Commission
or the National Commission may issue a certificate for the said amount to the Collector of the
district (by whatever name called) and the Collector shall proceed to recover the amount in the
same manner as arrears of land revenue.

Section 27- Penalties. - (1) Where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made or the
complainant fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State
Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, such trader or person or
complainant shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one
month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two
thousands rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (2 of 1974),
the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be,
shall have the power of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the trial of offences under this
Act, and on such conferment of powers, the District Forum or the State Commission or the
National Commission, as the case may be, on whom the powers are so conferred, shall be
deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the purpose of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(3) All offences under this Act may be tried summarily by the District Forum or the State
Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be.

Section 27A- Appeal against order passed under section 27 - (1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal under section 27, both
on facts and on law, shall lie from -

(a) the order made by the District Forum to the State Commission ;

(b) the order made by the State Commission to the National Commission; and

(c) the order made by the National Commission to the Supreme Court.

(2) Except as aforesaid, no appeal shall lie to any court from any order of a District Forum or a
State Commission or the National Commission.

(3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date
of an order of a District Forum or a State Commission or, as the case may be, the National
Commission :

Provided that the State Commission or the National Commission or the Supreme Court, as the
case may be, may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if, it is
satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of
thirty days.

Remedy Under Section 25-

Section 25 of the CPA is applicable only to money recoverable under an award passed by the
consumer fora. It is not applicable to non-monetary claims such as failure to obey directions
given by the fora.
The section empowers a consumer forum to issue a recovery certificate for the amount payable
under its order, which would be sent to the collector, who would recover the amount in the same
manner prescribed for recovering arrears of land revenue.

The state commission observed that the consumer forum's role does not end on issuing a
recovery certificate. The consumer fora exercise a supervisory control over the collector and
revenue officers. If it is found that the collector has unduly delayed the execution of certificate,
or wrongly refused or avoided executing it, the consumer fora must invoke their powers under
Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This means that the collector or revenue officers
would face prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of the consumer fora.

While executing the recovery certificate, the collector usually recovers his administrative costs
from the amount recovered. The deduction results in the complainant not getting the entire
amount due to him. The state commission has held that the collector's administrative costs must
be collected from the party from whom the money is being recovered, which would be in
addition to the amount being collected as per the recovery certificate. This would ensure that no
deduction is made from the amount to be realized by the consumer.

Remedy under Section 27-

Section 27 of the CPA is applicable in case of non-compliance of an order of the forum. It can be
invoked for failure to pay an amount due under an order of the consumer forum, or for
disobedience of the directions given. These are criminal proceedings. The procedure applicable
to a summary trial under Chapters XX and XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be
followed.

This means that the complainant who seeks to enforce the order must appear before the district
forum and his statement must be recorded. After this, summons are issued to the person who is
accused of not having complied with the forum's order. If the accused fails to appear, the forum
has to issue a bailable warrant through the police to secure his presence. Even when the accused
appears, he has to submit a bail application. In ordinary course, bail must be granted, and jail is
an exception. Along with bail, the accused must furnish a personal bond or surety as may be
directed by the consumer forum.
Some fora grant time to the accused to file his reply, while some allow payment in installments
without conducting the trial. The state commission has observed that this is legally not correct.
The order has to be complied in its totality. In case of non-compliance, the consumer forum must
explain the offence to the accused, and record his statement as to whether he pleads guilty or not.
The trial should then be conducted summarily.

The state commission has held that multiple execution

applications can be made either under Section 25 or under Section 27, depending upon the facts
of the case. No appeal can be filed against interim, interlocutory and procedural orders passed in
a proceeding under Section 27, but an appeal would lie only against the final order. These
guidelines will give much needed relief to harried consumers.

Carrier Services & Consummer Laws-

At a basic level, courier services enable you to send something to a person, in India or abroad,
faster and safer than other means for a price that may be higher than usual. Prices and policies
differ from one courier service agency to the other but the gist is that you can get your package
or letter sent fast to the desired place without delays or safety concerns.

Courier Services: Deficiencies in Delivery or Damage or Loss of Goods

Many deficiencies have been reported against courier services and these became consumer
complaints too. Remember, Section 8 of the Carriers Act 1865 establishes that every carrier is
liable to the owner for loss or damage caused to any property delivered to such carrier, and when
the said loss or damage had arisen from a criminal act of the carrier, or any of his servants of
agents.

In the context of courier services, lets understand what type of deficiencies can be pointed out
and how you can exercise your rights to demand high quality and efficiency from these providers
the next time you need to opt for courier services.
Courier Services: Disclose Exact Value of Consignment and Insure It.

A consignment of papers is entrusted with a courier service agency and it is to be sent to

Chennai. This does not reach the person because the consignment is lost by the agency. Yes, this
amounts to deficiency in services for which the consumer can lodge a complaint and claim
compensation. However, before suing the courier agency for loss, the consumer should have
disclosed the exact value of the consignment in the consignment note or invoice and the
consignment itself should have been insured before it was sent. Next time you want to send
something valuable, disclose its value in the consignment note/invoice and insure the
consignment as well.

Courier Services: Owners Risk Applies to Combustible and Perishable Goods

When you want to send combustible or perishable goods by courier, be aware that the principle
of owners risk applies to such goods as indicated in the goods receipt. Also, if you have not
packed the goods properly, the principle of owners risk applies.

This principle of owners risk does not mean that you, as an owner, will be responsible for any
loss or damage that happens to goods when you entrusted it properly to the courier service
agency.

CASES: -

Skypack Couriers Pvt. Ltd. & Another v. M/s. Anupama Bagla (1992). In this case, non-delivery
of a video cassette by a courier service company resulting in the complainant losing admission to
the desired college was held to be deficiency in service as the complainant was put to serious
hardship and loss by reason of the neglect and failure on the part of the courier to deliver the
article entrusted to them for carriage. Accordingly, compensation of Rs.10,000 was awarded to
the complainant.

In another case against Skypack Couriers Pvt. Ltd. v. CERS and Others (1992), compensation of
Rs.1,000 was awarded for non-delivery of consignment containing the complainants visas,air
tickets, passport, etc.
5. Procedure Followed-

We understand that the Consumer Forums are the bodies who function like courts in order to
settle the consumer disputes. Their composition is so made as to best represent the interests of
the consumers, and they have specified jurisdictions. The next question is - what procedure these
Forums adopt in order to deal with the consumer disputes.

Section 13 of the Act has detailed the procedure in context of District Forum only. For State
Commission, section 18 says that it will follow the same procedure as followed by District
Forum with such modifications as necessary, and for the National Commission, section 22 gives
power to the Central Government to make rules in this regard. These rules in turn have included
therein the procedure given by section 13. In addition, these rules have prescribed some
procedures to be followed by the parties to the complaint.

A complaint may be made with respect to the goods or services. When complaint relates to
goods, the criteria for the decision is - whether the goods are defective or not. Now the question
is - how to hold that the goods are defective. The most logical way is to get the goods tested to
determine the defect. However, in certain cases defect can be determined without technical
support or it may happen that the test is not feasible. These are
i.The opposite party admits the defect

ii. The defect is obvious and is visible to naked eyes, like in a complaint about contamination of
water, the sample of water given was so dirty that the Forum did not consider it necessary to send
it for test.

(iii) When the complainant is not in possession of the subject matter of the complaint, e.g., in a
matter the complainant had given to the dealer the tyre and tube which had burst, the dealer sent
the same to the manufacturer. Thus the complainant was not in possession of the same.

(iv) When subject matter of the complaint gets destroyed, like in case a pressure cooker burst, its
remains cant be send to the laboratory for testing.

(v) In case of complaint regarding deficiency in service there is no question of testing or

analysis.
Thus the procedure to be followed by the Forums can be discussed under the two heads

1. where laboratory test is required to determine the defect in goods.

2. where no laboratory test is required to determine the defect in goods or the complaint relates to
services.

Procedure to be followed by the District Forum [Section 13]

The following procedure is equally applicable to the District Forum, State Commission with
required modifications, and National Commission with additional procedures required by the
rules.

i)WHERE LABORATORY TEST IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE DEFECT IN GOODS

- A consumer is supposed to file as many copies of the complaint as there are number of judges,
with all essential information, supporting papers like correspondence, and specifying the
compensation demanded.

On receipt of such complaint:

(a) The District Forum should refer a copy of the complaint to the opposite party directing him to
give his version of the case within a period of thirty days which can be extended to forty five
days.
Where the opposite party on receipt of a complaint referred to him denies or disputes the
allegations contained in the complaint, or omits or fails to take any action to represent his case
within the time given by the District Forum, the District Forum would take the following steps to
settle the dispute,

(b) The District Forum may require the complainant to deposit specified fees for payment to the
appropriate laboratory for carrying out the necessary analysis or test in relation to the goods in
question.

(c) The District Forum will obtain a sample of the goods, seal it, authenticate it and refer the
sample so sealed to the *appropriate laboratory for an analysis or test, whichever may be
necessary, with a view to finding out whether such goods suffer from any defect.
The District Forum will remit the fees to the appropriate laboratory to enable it to carry out
required analysis or test. The laboratories supposed to report its findings to the District Forum
within a period of fifty-five days. This period is extendible by the District Forum.

(d) Upon receiving laboratorys report, its copy will be forwarded by the District Forum to the
opposite party alongwith its own remarks.

(e) In the event of any party disputing the correctness of the findings, or the methods of analysis
or test adopted by the appropriate laboratory, the District Forum shall require the objecting party
to submit his objections in writing.

(f) The District Forum will give an opportunity of hearing to the objecting party.

g) The District Forum shall issue appropriate order after hearing the parties.

(ii) WHERE NO LABORATORY TEST IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE DEFECT IN

GOODS OR THE COMPLAINT RELATES TO SERVICES

(a) On receiving the complaint, the District Forum should refer a copy of the complaint to the
opposite party directing him to give his version of the case within a period of thirty days which
can be extended to forty five days.

(b) The opposite party on receipt of a complaint referred to him may

(i) admit the complaint

(ii) deny or dispute the allegations contained in the complaint, or

(iii) omits or fails to respond within the time given by the District Forum.
(c) Where the opposite party admits the allegation, the District Forum should decide the matter
on the basis of the merits of the case and the documents before it.
Where the opposite party denies or disputes the allegations made in the complaint, the District
Forum will proceed to settle the dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by both the
parties.
Where the opposite party omits or fails to respond within the time given by the Forum, the
District Forum will proceed to settle the dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by
the complainant.

(d) The District Forum shall issue an appropriate order after hearing the parties and taking into
account available evidence.

Procedure to be followed by the National Commission [Section 22]

Section 22 of the Act provides that the National Commission shall follow such procedure as
prescribed by the Central Government. The Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 framed by the
Central Government lay down the procedure which is as follows-

(1) A complaint containing the following particulars shall be presented by the complainant in
person or by his agent to the National Commission or be sent by registered post,
addressed to the National Commission.
(a) the name, description and the address of the complainant;
(b) the name, description and address of the opposite party or parties, as the case may be,
so far as they can be ascertained;
(c) the facts relating to the complaint and when and where it arose;
(d) documents in support of the allegations contained in the complaint;
(e) the relief which the complainant claims.

(2) The National Commission shall, in disposal of any complaint before it, as far as possible,
follow the procedures laid down section 13 of the Act.
(3) On the date of hearing, it shall be obligatory on the parties or their agents to appear
before the National Commission. Where the complainant or his agent fails to appear, the
National Commission may either dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merits.
Where the opposite party or its agent fails to appear on the date of hearing the National
Commission may decide the complaint ex parte.
(4) The complaint shall be decided as far as possible within a period of three months from
the date of notice received by opposite party where complaint does not require analysis or
testing of commodities and within five months if it requires analysis or testing of
commodities.
(5) After the proceedings, the National Commission shall issue the orders accordingly.
............
 CASE STUDY

CASE-I

1. SMT NIHAL KUNWAR W/O JAY SINGH

2. JAI SINGH S/O MADANSINGH RAJPUT

VS

1. GOVT OF MP, THROUGH COLLECTOR OF MANDSAUR

2. CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTHCARE OFFICER, DISTRICT HOSPITAL
MANDSAUR
3. BLOCK MEDICAL OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTHCARE, DHUDHADKA

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 20.07.2016
passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandsaur (For short Forum) in
C.C.N0.95/2016.

Facts-

The appeallant/complainant no.1 got operated for Tubectomy (TT) (a family planning operation)
on 22.02.2010 at respondent no.3 Primary Health Centre (PHC), Dhudhadka, District-Mandsaur.
lnspite of the said operation, after six months in August- 2010 she conceived pregnancy and gave
birth to a third female child on 07.05.2011.

Now the complaint for the same was made on 07.04.2016 in which it ws alleged that because of
the birth of an umwanted child they have suffered mental as well as physcial pain & hence they
claimed for compensation.

It is clear from the facts of the case that the appellant.no.1 got operated for Tubectomy (family
planning operation) in a government hospital, i.e. PHC, Dhudhadka, District Mandsaur where
the services provided to her were free of charge & thus the appellant no.1 falls under the
category of a patient who has been provided services free of charge and such service is not a
service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, meaning thereby, the
complainants do not fall under the category of consumer as defined under Section 2 (1) (d) of
the Act.

Also, TT operation of appellant was performed on 22.02.2010 whereas she conceived pregnancy
in August-2010, therefore the cause of action arose for appellants/complainants in August-2010,
whereas the complaint under this case has been filed in the year 2016 which is beyond the
prescribed time limit(2 yrs).

Hence the appeal being devoid of substance & merit is dismissed at the admission stage. The
order of the Forum is maintained.
CASE-II

LAXMINARAYAN

R/O VILLAGE- GADERCHAK

DISTRICT- GUNA (MP)

VS

JR. ENGINEER

M.P. MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO.LTD.

GUNA(MP)

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 19.10.2015
passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Guna (For short Forum) in
C.C.No.29/2015.

Facts-

The appellant/complainant had obtained an electricity connection no. 384418-90-1-636554 from

the opposite party/respondent M.P.Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited (For short
'Electricity Company) in his temporary shed (Tapra) in which he was running dhaba. It is
stated that he was being given bills on the basis of average consumption per month which he
regularly paid. It is alleged that he paid Rs.2000/- on 10.10.2012 and Rs.1000/- on 07.03.2013
which were not adjusted in the bills. It is further alleged that in the year 2013 the said shed was
demolished due to excessive rains for which compensation to the tune of Rs.4000/- has been
sanctioned from the government. it is further alleged that after demolition of said shed, he never
consumed electricity and he gave oral intimation to the respondent electricity company, even
then the respondent sent bills for Rs.12064l- on 21.12.2013, for Rs.3419/ in December-2014
and for Rs.24360/- in January-2015 on the basis of average consumption. Thus he filed a
complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent claiming quashing of the
bills.

Record of the Forum reveals that the respondent electricity company continuously raised the bills
on the basis of average consumption per month. From the bills filed on record it is clear that the
appellant was not paying the bills regularly as is evident from the bills issued by the respondent
showing previous arrears due from 2012. The appellant failed to produce any such document
which could prove that he informed the respondent that due to excessive rains his shed was
demolished and he stopped consuming electricity and his electricity connection be disconnected,
since he was not using the said connection. In such circumstances we find that the respondent
electricity company in absence of any intimation received, cannot on its own presume that the
appellant was not consuming electricity and thus it cannot be said that the respondent electricity
company has committed deficiency in service in raising the bills on average basis. Even
otherwise, the appellant was a habitual defaulter and has not paid the bills regularly. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint of
appellant and we do not find any cogent reason to take a different View of the matter. The appeal
being devoid of substance & merit is dismissed at the admission stage. The order of the Forum Is
maintained.
CASE-III

RAJLAXMI ENTERPRISES
VS.
SMT. SHARDA VERMA
(FIRST APPEAL NO. 2013/2012)

Facts-

In this case the respondent who is a resident of Ujjain bought a TVS Streak scooty from the
appellant on 9.4.2011. The cost of the scooty was Rs. 39,350. Since the appellant bought the
scooty in the year 2011 it was thought that the scooty was a model of the year 2011 as was also
said by the appellant. But at the time of registration it was found that the model of the scooty was
of 2010. The appellant said that the year of manufacture has nothing to do with the product as
there was no difference between the models of the years 2010 and 2011. Also the cost of the
scooty was same along with similar characteristics.

The respondent pleaded before the court that they should be provided with a new scooty of 2011
model along with the compensation because of the mental anguish caused by the appellant. The
district forum Ujjain held that undoubtedly there has been deficieny in service on the part of the
appellant and the respondent should be provided with a new scooty of 2011 model along with a
compensation worth Rs. 10,000 for mental anguish and Rs. 1,500 as the cost of litigation.

The appeal was filed in the state commission where the commission agreed to the order passed
by the forum and said that there has been deficiency in the service provided by the appellant but
ordered that there is no need to replace the scooty as the both the models of scooty that is of the
year 2010 and 2011 are of same price and have same features so there is no need replace the
scooty and said that the rest of the order given by the consumer forum is maintained.
CASE-IV

SHUKHLAL KHUSHWAHA
Vs.
VIMAL AUTOMOBILES & ORS.
(FIRST APPEAL NO. 1415/2009)

This appeal was filed by the appellant after the order of consumer forum Shivpuri which was
decided in the favour of the respondent. The appellant is a simple farmer who works on his own
agricultural land. He brought a tractor from the respondent for the purpose of using it on his land
from the respondent. Its cost was Rs. 395000. The tractor was brought on 26.3.2005. It was
manufactured by Standard Companies Pvt. Ltd. The appellant took the loan for buying this
tractor from the Union Bank of India. The question before the court was that was there any
deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. During the time of purchase it was said by the
seller that the tractor was new in he market with the best average and carry a lot of load. But
after the purchase it was found that the teactor consumes so much amount diesel and is able to
carry load. According to the appellant he complained to the respondent about this but he said that
after first servicing the tractor will start working properly but it didnt happen. Appellant said
that the respondent has said lies and has made the year of warranty pass which was of 1 year.

The manufacturer said that he has not received any such complaints otherwise they would have
replaced the tractor as it was under the warranty period but since now the warranty period is over
they cannot do anything. The cort asked the appellant to produce any proof that he had
complained to the respondent about the bad condition of the tractor regarding the low average
which the appellant failed to provide and consumer forum denied his petition and ordered in the
favour of the respondent.

The state commission after hearing the matter said that since the appellant failed to provide any
proof regarding the complaints about the bad performance of the tractor to the respondent the
court cannot give the order in the favour of the appellant and the state commission upheld the
order given by the consumer forum.
CASE-V

SMT. LAXMI JOTHE

W/O SHRI SURESH KUMAR JOTHE

GRAM DUGADIYA

DISTRICT HOSANGABAD(MP)

VS

KESHAV HOSPITAL

ITWARA BAZAR, BHOPAL

THROUGH DR. ASHOK SETHA

& DR. ANUP SETHA

(FIRST APP/NO.- 646/2011)

Appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 22.3.2011 passed by District
Forum,Hosangabd in complaint case no. 151/2010.

Facts-

The comlainant visited hospital of respondent abdominal pain. Respondent advised her for an
opertation for the removal of uterus. Operation took place on 28.06.2007. Then from the same
hospital she took treatment upto 06.03.2008. As she didnt get relief so she has visited a no. o
other hospitals too & also she filed a complaint against the respondents hospital. But the
complaint was made on 16.07.2010 which is 4 months beyond the limitation period hence the
application for condonation of delay under section 24Aof Consumer Protection Act 1986 was
filed.

At first instance the learned forum has dismissed the case.

But the learned counsel or the appellant submitted that since the complainant didnt get relief ,the
cause of action remained continue.

But according to the opinion of learned forum the date of cause of action or complainant could
be at the best 06.03.2008. Merely because she got her treated at some other hospitals, it cant be
held that the cause of ction continued.

Also it is clear from the report received from Medical Board of District Hosangabad that the line
of treatment followed by the respondents was correct.

Because of the aforesaid reasons the appeal was dismissed & hence the order of the forum was
maintained.