2001 (8) TMI 1426 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of various sections of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Composition of the Consumer Commissions.
3. Power of judicial review.
4. Creation of a new offence under Section 27 of the Act.
5. Constitutionality of Section 27 of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Various Sections of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
The petitioners questioned the validity of Sections 2(d), (e), (f), (g), 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24(b), and 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The respondents argued that the Act is not in derogation of any other law and does not take away any rights of the parties. The Court noted that the Act was enacted to protect consumers' rights and provide a forum for redressal of consumer disputes at the district, state, and national levels. The Act's provisions were found to be in line with its objective to protect consumers against unfair trade practices and exploitation.

2. Composition of the Consumer Commissions:
The petitioners contended that the composition of the Commissions, which includes laypersons, violates Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court observed that the President of the District Forum must be a person qualified to be a District Judge, and the other members must have adequate knowledge or experience in relevant fields. The Court held that the presence of a judicial member ensures fairness in the decision-making process, and the Act provides for appeals to higher forums, thus safeguarding the rights of the parties.

3. Power of Judicial Review:
The petitioners argued that the Act takes away the High Court's power of judicial review. The Court rejected this contention, stating that the Act does not exclude the power of judicial review. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, which held that the power of judicial superintendence is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that even if the Supreme Court exercises appellate jurisdiction, the High Court retains its power of judicial review.

4. Creation of a New Offence Under Section 27 of the Act:
The petitioners argued that Section 27 creates a new offence without providing safeguards as under the Code of Civil Procedure, thus violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court noted that Section 27 provides penalties for non-compliance with orders of the Consumer Commissions. The Court referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in Ravi Kant v. National Consumer Dis. Redressal Commission, which upheld the constitutionality of Section 27. The Court observed that Section 27 is akin to provisions for contempt of court and does not create a separate offence requiring a criminal trial.

5. Constitutionality of Section 27 of the Act:
The Karnataka High Court in Paramjit Singh v. Union of India held that Section 27 should be tried under the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the Andhra Pradesh High Court disagreed, stating that Section 27 should be read in conjunction with Section 25 and that the provisions of the Act provide sufficient safeguards. The Court held that the principles of natural justice must be followed, and the authorities must adopt a fair and reasonable procedure. The Court concluded that Section 27 is not unconstitutional and does not violate Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the validity of the challenged provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and confirming that the Act does not violate the Constitution. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting consumers' rights and ensuring that the Consumer Commissions function effectively to provide redressal for consumer grievances.