http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 7975 of 2001

PETITIONER:

DR. J.J. MERCHANT & ORS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

SHRINATH CHATURVEDI

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/08/2002

BENCH:

M.B. Shah, Bisheshwar Prasad Singh & H.K. SEMA.

JUDGMENT:

Shah, J.

Miscellaneous Petition No.53 of 2000 was filed before the

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter

referred to as "National Commission"), New Delhi in Original

Petition No.252 of 1993 by the appellants - doctors praying that

complaint filed for alleged medical negligence be either dismissed as

according to them complicated questions of law and facts arise which

can best be decided by the Civil Court or in the alternative the

proceeding be stayed during the pendency of criminal prosecution

pending against them in criminal court at Mumbai. That application

was rejected by the Commission. Hence, this appeal.

In the present case, complainant respondent filed Original

Petition before the National Commission on 26.8.1993 alleging that

his son aged 21 years was admitted to the Breach Candy Hospital,

Mumbai on 4.8.1992 for operation of slip disc as he was suffering

from backache. It was stated that before that, he had returned from

USA in the month of June, 1992 after obtaining degree in Business

Management. He died on 29th August, 1992 in the hospital itself.

For this, he attributed medical negligence.

Before filing complaint before the National Commission, the

complainant had also filed criminal complaint before the

Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai for the offences punishable under

Sections 304-A/201 and 203 of Indian Penal Code. That prosecution

is also pending. The Commission rejected the application by holding

that there is no universal rule of law that during the pendency of

criminal proceedings, civil proceedings must invariably be stayed.

The Commission also observed that there was unexplained delay in

moving such application at this stage and, therefore, case requires to

be decided at the earliest.

In this appeal, the Court issued notice on 7th December, 2001

and thereafter on 28th January, 2002 passed the following order:

"It is contended by Mr. Ashok Desai, learned

senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. R.F.

Nariman, the learned senior counsel appearing for the

intervenors that some guidelines will have to be laid

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12

down which are more precise in nature with regard to

the type of cases which the Consumer Forum will not

entertain, keeping in mind the decision of this Court in

Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shanta [(1995) 6

SCC 651] in paragraph 37. List after six weeks on a

non-miscellaneous day before a Bench of Three Judges.

In the meantime, there will be no stay of proceedings."

Learned senior counsel Mr. Nariman first submitted that

considering - (a) the inordinate delay in disposal of the complaint, (b)

complicated question of law and facts involved in this case

depending upon medical experts opinion summary procedure is not

proper remedy for deciding such issues, hence complainant should be

directed to approach the Civil Court.

Reasons for delay as submitted by the Learned Counsel

for the parties:

a) Delay in making appointment of the Chairman and

Members of the Forum or Commission including

National Commission;

b) Not providing adequate infrastructure;

c) Delay because of heavy workload and there is only one

Bench of the National Commission or the State

Commissions for deciding complaints;

d) Delay in procedure;

Before dealing with reasons for delay, the first question which

requires consideration is whether delay in disposal of cases by the

Consumer Forum or Commission would be a ground for directing the

complainant to approach Civil Court?

In the present case, there is inordinate delay of about nine

years in disposal of complaint. However, if this contention raised by

the learned counsel for the appellants is accepted, apart from the fact

that it would be unjust, the whole purpose and object of enacting the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')

would be frustrated. One of the main objects of the Act is to provide

speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes and for that a

quasi-judicial machinery is sought to be set up at the district, State

and Central level. These quasi-judicial bodies are required to observe

the principles of natural justice and have been empowered to give

relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever appropriate,

compensation to consumers. Penalties for non-compliance of the

orders given by the quasi-judicial bodies have also been provided.

The object and purpose of enacting the Act is to render simple,

inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers with complaints

against defective goods and deficient services and the benevolent

piece of legislation intended to protect a large body of consumers

from exploitation would be defeated. Prior to the Act, consumers

were required to approach the Civil Court for securing justice for the

wrong done to them and it is known fact that decision in suit takes

years. Under the Act, consumers are provided with an alternative,

efficacious and speedy remedy. As such, the Consumer forum is an

alternative forum established under the Act to discharge the functions

of a Civil Court. Therefore, delay in disposal of the complaint would

not be a ground for rejecting the complaint and directing the

complainant to approach the Civil Court.

Further, while rejecting the similar contention where the

complainant was directed to approach State Commission or District

Forum, this Court in Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12

Others [(2000) 7 SCC 668] observed that appellant ought not to have

been condemned unheard after waiting for six long years; the

legislative intent, for enacting the legislation, of a speedy summary

trial, to settle the claim of the complainant (consumers) has been

respected in breach. The spirit of the benevolent legislation has been

overlooked and its object frustrated by non-suiting the appellant in

the manner in which it has been done by the National Consumer

Forum. It was further observed that "the Consumer Forums must

take expeditious steps to deal with the complaints filed before them

and not keep them pending for years. It would defeat the object of

the Act, if summary trials are not disposed of expeditiously by the

forums at the District, State or National levels. Steps in this direction

are required to be taken in the right earnest".

Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that the

present case involves complicated question of facts for which experts

including doctors would be required to be examined and their cross-

examination may be necessary, therefore also, the National

Commission ought to have directed the complainant to approach the

Civil Court. For this purpose, the reliance is placed upon the

decision of this Court in Indian Medical Association v. V.P.

Shantha and others [(1995) 6 SCC 651 para 37] and it is submitted

that in the present case complicated question of fact involving

negligence of doctors is to be decided and, therefore, complainant

should be directed to approach the Civil Court. In the aforesaid case,

the Court rejected the said contention and observed thus:

"..It has been urged that proceedings involving

negligence in the matter of rendering services by a

medical practitioner would raise complicated questions

requiring evidence of experts to be recorded and that the

procedure which is followed for determination of

consumer disputes under the Act is summary in nature

involving trial on the basis of affidavits and is not

suitable for determination of complicated questions. It is

no doubt true that sometimes complicated questions

requiring recording of evidence of experts may arise in

a complaint about deficiency in service based on the

ground of negligence in rendering medical services by a

medical practitioner; but this would not be so in all

complaints about deficiency in rendering services by a

medical practitioner. There may be cases which do not

raise such complicated questions and the deficiency in

service may be due to obvious faults which can be easily

established such as removal of the wrong limb or the

performance of an operation on the wrong patient or

giving injection of a drug to which the patient is allergic

without looking into the out-patient card containing the

warning {as in Chin Keow v. Govt. of Malaysia [(1967)

1 WLR 813 (PC)]} or use of wrong gas during the course

of an anaesthetic or leaving inside the patient swabs or

other items of operating equipment after surgery. One

often reads about such incidents in the newspapers. The

issues arising in the complaints in such cases can be

speedily disposed of by the procedure that is being

followed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies

and there is no reason why complaints regarding

deficiency in service in such cases should not be

adjudicated by the Agencies under the Act. In

complaints involving complicated issues requiring

recording of evidence of experts, the complainant can be

asked to approach the civil court for appropriate relief.

Section 3 of the Act which prescribes that the provisions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12

of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of

the provisions of any other law for the time being in

force, preserves the right of the consumer to approach the

civil court for necessary relief. We are, therefore, unable

to hold that on the ground of composition of the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies or on the ground

of the procedure which is followed by the said Agencies

for determining the issues arising before them, the

service rendered by the medical practitioners are not

intended to be included in the expression 'service' as

defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.."

In the aforesaid case, the Court was dealing with a contention

that services rendered by the medical practitioners are not intended to

be included in the expression "service" as defined in Section 2(1)(o)

of the Act. That contention was negatived by the Court. Further

from this decision, it is apparent that it is within the discretion of the

Commission to ask the complainant to approach the civil court for

appropriate relief in case complaint involves complicated issues

requiring recording of evidence of experts, which may delay the

proceeding. But the court has specifically held that issues arising in

the complaints in such cases can be speedily disposed of by the

procedure that is being followed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal

Agencies.

Further, under the Act the National Commission is required to

be headed by a retired Judge of this Court and the State Commission

is required to be headed by a retired High Court Judge. They are

competent to decide complicated issues of law or facts. Hence, it

would not be proper to hold that in cases where negligence of experts

is alleged, consumers should be directed to approach the Civil Court.

It was next contended that such complicated questions of facts

cannot be decided in summary proceedings. In our view, this

submission also requires to be rejected because under the Act, for

summary or speedy trial, exhaustive procedure in conformity with the

principles of natural justice is provided. Therefore, merely because it

is mentioned that Commission or Forum is required to have summary

trial would hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to approach

the Civil Court. For trial to be just and reasonable long drawn

delayed procedure, giving ample opportunity to the litigant to harass

the aggrieved other side, is not necessary. It should be kept in mind

that legislature has provided alternative, efficacious, simple,

inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers and that should not

be curtailed on such ground. It would also be totally wrong

assumption that because summary trial is provided, justice cannot be

done when some questions of facts are required to be dealt with or

decided. The Act provides sufficient safeguards. For this purpose,

we would refer to the procedure prescribed under the Act for disposal

of the complaint.

"13. Procedure on receipt of complaint(1) The

District Forum shall, on receipt of a complaint, if it

relates to any goods,

(a) refer a copy of the complaint to the opposite

party mentioned in the complaint directing

him to give his version of the case within a

period of thirty days or such extended period

not exceeding fifteen days as may be

granted by the District Forum;

(b) where the opposite party on receipt of a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12

complaint referred to him under clause (a)

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 shall proceed to settle the consumer

dispute in the manner specified in clauses

(c) to (g);

(c) to (g) .

(2) the District Forum shall, if the complaint

received by it under section 12 relates to goods in respect

of which the procedure specified in sub-section (1)

cannot be followed, or if the complaint relates to any

services,

(a) refer a copy of such complaint to the

opposite party directing him to give his

version of the case within a period of thirty

days or such extended period not exceeding

fifteen days as may be granted by the

District Forum;

(b) where the opposite party, on receipt of a

copy of the complaint, referred to him under

clause (a) 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 shall proceed to settle the

consumer dispute,

(i) on the basis of evidence brought to its

notice by the complainant and the

opposite party, where the opposite

party denies or disputes the

allegations contained in the

complaint, or

(ii) on the basis of evidence brought to its

notice by the complainant where the

opposite party omits or fails to take

any action to represent his case within

the time given by the Forum.

(3) No proceedings complying with the

procedure laid down in sub-sections (1) and (2)

shall be called in question in any court on the

ground that principles of natural justice have not

been complied with.

(4) For the purposes of this section, the

District Forum shall have the same powers as are

vested in a civil court under Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 while trying a suit in respect of

the following matters, namely:

(i) the summoning and enforcing the

attendance of any defendant or

witness and examining the witness

on oath;

(ii) the discovery and production of any

document or other material object

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12

producible as evidence;

(iii) the reception of evidence on

affidavits;

(iv) the requisitioning of the report of the

concerned analysis or test from the

appropriate laboratory or from any

other relevant source;

(v) issuing of any commission for the

examination of any witness; and

(vi) any other matter which may be

prescribed."

The National Commission or the State Commission is

empowered to follow the said procedure. From the aforesaid Section

it is apparent that on receipt of the complaint, the opposite party is

required to be given notice directing him to give his version of the

case within a period of 30-days or such extended period not

exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District Forum or the

Commission. For having speedy trial, this legislative mandate of not

giving more than 45 days in submitting the written statement or the

version of the case is required to be adhered. If this is not adhered,

the legislative mandate of disposing of the cases within three or five

months would be defeated.

For this purpose, even the Parliament has amended Order VIII

Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, which reads thus:

"Rule-1: Written statement.The defendant

shall, within thirty days from the date of service of

summons on him, present a written statement of his

defence :

Provided that where the defendant fails to file the

written statement within the said period of thirty days, he

shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as

may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded

in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days

from the date of service of summons."

Under this Rule also, there is a legislative mandate that written

statement of defence is to be filed within 30 days. However, if there

is a failure to file such written statement within stipulated time, the

court can at the most extend further period of 60 days and no more.

Under the Act, the legislative intent is not to give 90 days of time but

only maximum 45 days for filing the version by the opposite party.

Therefore, the aforesaid mandate is required to be strictly adhered to.

Further, under Section 13(4) of the Act, the Commission or the

Forum is empowered to exercise the powers vested in Civil Court for

discovery and production of any document, the reception of evidence

on affidavit and of issuing of any commission qua examination of

any witness.

In view of the aforesaid provisions, the Commission can

certainly refer to Order VII Rule 14 which provides that where a

plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12

possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such

documents in a list, and shall produce it in the Court when the plaint

is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document

and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. It appears that this

mandatory requirement is not followed and thereafter, there is

complaint of delay in disposal. Similarly, in case of written

statement under Order VIII Rule I-A, defendant is required to

produce the documents relied upon by him when written submission

is presented. The Commission can always insist on production of all

documents relied upon by the parties along with the complaint and

the defence version.

Further, in the present case, the complainant's case is based

upon the negligence of the Doctors in giving treatment to the

deceased. Whether there was negligence or not on the part of the

concerned Doctors would depend upon facts alleged to and in such a

case there is no question of complicated question of law involved.

However, it has been pointed out by the learned senior counsel

that recording of evidence of experts including doctors relied

upon by the complainant would consume much time and

therefore also complainant should approach the Civil Court. As

against this, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that under

the Act, Commission is required to follow summary procedure. It

may or may not examine the doctors or experts. It may only rely

upon the statements given by such doctors or experts.

It is true that it is the discretion of the Commission to examine

the experts if required in appropriate matter. It is equally true that in

cases where it is deemed fit to examine experts, recording of

evidence before a Commission may consume time. The Act

specifically empowers the Consumer Forums to follow the procedure

which may not require more time or delay the proceedings. Only

caution required is to follow the said procedure strictly. Under the

Act, while trying a complaint, evidence could be taken on affidavits

[under Section 13(4)(iii)]. It also empowers such Forums to issue

any Commission for examination of any witness [under Section

13(4)(v)]. It is also to be stated that Rule 4 in Order XVIII of C.P.C.

is substituted which inter alia provides that in every case, the

examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit and copies

thereof shall be supplied to the opposite party by the party who calls

him for evidence. It also provides that witnesses could be examined

by the Court or the Commissioner appointed by it. As stated above,

the Commission is also empowered to follow the said procedure.

Hence, we do not think that there is any scope of delay in

examination or cross-examination of the witnesses. The affidavits of

the experts including the doctors can be taken as evidence.

Thereafter, if cross-examination is sought for by the other side and

the Commission finds it proper, it can easily evolve a procedure

permitting the party who intends to cross-examine by putting certain

questions in writing and those questions also could be replied by such

experts including doctors on affidavits. In case where stakes are very

high and still party intends to cross-examine such doctors or experts,

there can be video conferences or asking questions by arranging

telephone conference and at the initial stage this cost should be borne

by the person who claims such video conference. Further, cross-

examination can be taken by the Commissioner appointed by it at the

working place of such experts at a fixed time.

In any case, for avoiding the delay the District Forum or

Commissions can evolve a procedure of levying heavy cost where

adjournment is sought by a party on one or the other ground. This

would have its own impact on disposing the complaints, appeals or

revisions within the stipulated or reasonable time. For avoiding delay

in disposal of cases, the procedure and the time limit prescribed

under the Act and the Rules is required to be strictly adhered and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12

followed. If there is proper mind set to do so on the part of all

concerned, delay in disposal to a large extent could be avoided.

Learned senior counsel Mr. Nariman and Mr. Chatterjee and

Mr. Lalit (Amicus Curiae) submitted that despite various directions

given by this Court including the decision given in Charan Singh's

case (Supra), the District Forums, State Commissions and National

Commission remain flooded with number of complaints, appeals and

revisions and arrears is mounting. For delay, they unanimously

submitted that after enactment of the Act, appropriate steps are not

taken by the Government for ensuring that the National Commission

as well as State Forums can function properly. It is submitted that

even if one Member is appointed, other members of the Forum are

not appointed. It is also pointed out that on occasions there is no

simultaneous appointment of the Members of the Forum or the

President so as to make it functional. In most of the cases, it is their

submission that even after appointment of the members, the forum is

not provided with necessary building and infrastructure.

It is also pointed out that before the National Commission, as

on 1st April 2002, 7582 matters were pending, which consisted of

1495 original petitions, 2330 first appeals and 3757 revision

petitions. It is true that for disposal of these many matters in a

stipulated time limit as prescribed under the Act or the Rules, one

Bench may not be in a position to cope up with the work.

For reducing the arrears and for seeing that complaints, appeals

and revisions are decided speedily and within stipulated time, we

hope that President of National Commission would draw the

attention of the Government for taking appropriate actions within

stipulated time and see that object and purpose of the Act is not

frustrated.

Further, National Commission has administrative control over

the State Commissions and District Forums as provided under

Section 24-B, which reads thus:

"24B. Administrative Control.(1) The National

Commission shall have administrative control over all the

State Commissions in the following matters, namely

(i) calling for periodical return regarding the

institution, disposal pendency of cases;

(ii) issuance of instructions regarding adoption

of uniform procedure in the hearing of

matters, prior service of copies of

documents produced by one party to the

opposite parties, furnishing of English

translation of judgments written in any

language, speedy grant of copies of

documents;

(iii) generally overseeing the functioning of the

State Commissions or the District Fora to

ensure that the objects and purposes of the

Act are best served without in any way

interfering with their quasi-judicial freedom.

(2) The State Commission shall have administrative

control over all the District Fora within its jurisdiction in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12

all matters referred to in sub-section (1)."

It can be hoped that the National Commission would ensure its

best to see that District Forums, State Commissions and National

Commission can discharge its functions as efficiently and speedily as

contemplated by the provisions of the Act. The National

Commission has administrative control over all the State

Commissions inter alia for issuing of instructions regarding adoption

of uniform procedure in hearing of the matters etc. It would have

also administrative control in overseeing that the functions of the

State Commissions or District Forums are discharged in furtherance

of objects and purposes of the Act in the best manner.

It is to be stated that the grievances of the learned counsel for

the parties is sought to be taken care by the proposed amendment in

the Legislation. For this, we would refer to the Consumer Protection

(Amendment) Bill, 2002, which was introduced in Rajya Sabha and

was passed on 11th March, 2002. The statement of objects and

reasons of the said Bill reads thus:

"The enactment of the Consumer Protection Act,

1986 was an important milestone in the history of the

consumer movement in the country. The Act was made

to provide for the better protection and promotion of

consumer rights through the establishment of Consumer

Councils and quasi-judicial machinery. Under the Act,

consumer disputes redressal agencies have been set up

throughout the country with the District Forum at the

district level, State Commission at the State level and

National Commission at the National level to provide

simple, inexpensive and speedy justice to the consumers

with complaints against defective goods, deficient

services and unfair and restrictive trade practices. The

Act was also amended in the years 1991 and 1993 to

make it more effective and purposeful.

2. Although the consumer disputes redressal

agencies have to a considerable extent, served the

purpose for which they were created, the disposal of

cases has not been fast enough. Several bottlenecks and

shortcomings have also come to light in the

implementation of various provisions of the Act. With a

view to achieving quicker disposal of consumer

complaints by the consumer disputes redressal agencies

securing effective implementation of their orders,

widening the scope of some of the provisions of the Act

to make it more effective, removing various lacunae in

the Act and streamlining the procedures, amendments are

proposed in the Act, which inter alia, include the

following, namely:

(i) exclusion of the jurisdiction of the consumer

disputes redressal Agencies in respect of

claims for which corresponding provisions

in the special laws exist for the protection of

interests of consumers;

(ii) provisions for creation of Benches of the

National Commission and State

Commissions as well as holding of circuit

benches of these Commissions;

(iii) prescribing the period within which

complaints are to be admitted, notices are to

be issued to opposite party and the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12

complaints are to be decided. Similar

provisions have been proposed also in

respect of appeals;

(iv) no adjournment to be ordinarily allowed and

allowed where, a speaking order giving

reasons would be made.

(v) . (xvii) "

Further proposed amendments inter alia provides that after sub-

section (1) of Section 20, sub-section (1A)(i) and (ii) shall be

inserted, which reads thus:

"(1A)(i) The jurisdiction, powers and authority

of the National Commission may be exercised by

Benches thereof.

(ii) A Bench may be constituted by the

President with one or more members as the President

may deem fit."

Similar provision is introduced for the State Commission by

inserting sub-section (1B)(i) and (ii) after sub-section (1) of Section

16, which reads thus:

"(1B)(i) The jurisdiction, powers and authority

of the State Commission may be exercised by Benches

thereof.

(ii) A Bench may be constituted by the

President with one or more members as the President

may deem fit."

Therefore, the President of the National Commission or the

State Commission would have power to form the Benches for

disposal of the pending cases. It would certainly depend upon the

workload and the time frame contemplated under the Act for disposal

of such cases.

Proposed Bill also envisages insertion of Sub-section 3A in

Section 13 of the Act, which reads as under:

"(3A) Every complaint shall be heard as

expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made

to decide the complaint within a period of three

months from the date of receipt of notice by opposite

party where the complaint does not require analysis or

testing of commodities and within five months if it

requires analysis or testing of commodities:

Provided that no adjournment shall be ordinarily

granted by the District Forum unless sufficient cause is

shown and the reasons for grant of adjournment have

been recorded in writing by the Forum:

Provided further that the District Forum shall

make such orders as to the costs occasioned by the

adjournment as may be provided in the regulations

made under this Act."

From the wording of the aforesaid Section, it is apparent that

there is legislative mandate to the District Forum or the Commissions

to dispose of the complaints as far as possible within prescribed time

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12

of three months by adhering strictly to the procedure prescribed

under the Act. The opposite party has to submit its version within 30

days from the date of the receipt of the complaint by him and

Commission can give at the most further 15 days for some

unavoidable reasons to file its version.

Learned counsel for the parties submitted that in the present

case, there is a delay of more than nine years in disposal of the

complaint. For that purpose, they made a grievance that matters are

repeatedly adjourned on one or other ground without following the

procedure prescribed under Section 13 of the Act and Rule 14 of the

Consumer Protection Rules. The proposed amendment also requires

that no adjournment shall ordinarily be granted and in any case if

adjournment is required to be granted, reasons for the same are

required to be recorded. Further, to discourage granting of repeated

adjournments, if National Commission frames necessary regulations

heavy cost could be awarded. There is also proposal to add Section

12(3), which reads thus

"12(3) On receipt of a complaint made under sub-

section (1), the District Forum may, by order, allow the

complaint to be proceeded with or rejected:

Provided that a complaint shall not be rejected

under this sub-section unless an opportunity of being

heard has been given to the complainant:

Provided further that the admissibility of the

complaint shall ordinarily be decided within twenty-one

days from the date on which the complaint was

received."

It is apparent that the aforesaid proposed amendment in the Act

mandates the District Forum or the Commission to decide the

admissibility of the complaint within 21 days from the date on which

the complaint was received by it. This procedure is required to be

adhered so that after lapse of some time, objection with regard to

maintainability of the complaint is not required to be decided.

Other proposed amendments, such as, Sections 22C and 22D,

which deal with Circuit Benches and filling up of vacancies in the

office of President of District Forum, State Commission or of the

National Commission, as the case may be, is not required to be

referred to. However, we would mention that Section 30A, which is

proposed to be inserted, empowers the Commission to frame

regulations with the approval of the Central Government and sub-

section (2) empowers the Commission to frame regulations for

making provisions for the cost of adjournment of any proceeding

before the District Forum, the State Commission or the National

Commission.

From the proposed amendment in the Act, it is apparent that

Parliament is alive to the problems faced by the consumers and the

consumer forums and, therefore, further directions are not required to

be given.

However, apart from the contemplated legislative action, it is

expected that the Government would also take appropriate steps in

providing proper infrastructure so that the Act is properly

implemented and the legislative purpose of providing alternative,

efficacious, speedy, inexpensive remedy to the consumers is not

defeated or frustrated.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12

Similar action is also expected from the National Commission

as well as State Commissions. Hence, for avoiding delay in disposal

of complaints within prescribed period, National Commission is

required to take appropriate steps including:

(a) By exercise of Administrative control, it can be seen that

competent persons are appointed as Members on all

levels so that there may not be any delay in composition

of the Forum or the Commission for want of Members;

(b) It would oversee that time limit prescribed for filing

defence version and disposal of complaints is strictly

adhered to;

(c) It would see that complaint as well as defence version

should be accompanied by documents and affidavits

upon which parties intend to rely;

(d) In cases where cross-examination of the persons who

have filed affidavits is necessary, suggested questions of

cross-examination be given to the persons who have

tendered their affidavits and reply may be also on

affidavits;

(e) In cases where Commission deems it fit to cross-

examine the witnesses in person, video conference or

telephonic conference at the cost of person who so

applies could be arranged or cross-examination could be

through a Commission. This procedure would be

helpful in cross-examination of experts, such as,

Doctors.

In the result, with the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. IA Nos.1 to 4 do not

require any further consideration and stand disposed of accordingly.

Before parting with the judgment, we would appreciate the

assistance rendered by the learned counsel for the parties and Amicus

Curiae.