9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission) under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (1986 Act) to adjudicate claims for compensation arising out of motor vehicle accidents. 2. Applicability of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (1988 Act) and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Claims Tribunal) under the 1988 Act. 3. The legal standing (locus standi) of the Consumer Protection Council to file the claim. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the National Commission: The primary issue was whether the National Commission, constituted under Section 20 of the 1986 Act, had the jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim for compensation arising from a motor vehicle accident. The court examined the relevant provisions of the 1986 Act, including Section 2(c) which defines a "complaint," Section 2(d) which defines a "consumer," and Section 2(o) which defines "service." The court noted that the 1986 Act was enacted to provide better protection to consumers and for the establishment of consumer councils and authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes. 2. Applicability of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: The court analyzed the provisions of the 1988 Act, specifically Chapter XII which deals with Claims Tribunals. Section 165 of the 1988 Act allows State Governments to constitute Claims Tribunals for adjudicating claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving motor vehicles. Section 175 explicitly states that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal. The court emphasized that the 1988 Act, being a special law concerning claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents, would prevail over the general provisions of the 1986 Act. The court concluded that the claim for compensation due to the motor vehicle accident involving the deceased should have been filed before the Claims Tribunal under the 1988 Act, not the National Commission. 3. Legal Standing of the Consumer Protection Council: The appellant contested the claim on the grounds that the Consumer Protection Council had no locus standi to maintain the action. The court did not delve deeply into this issue as it primarily focused on the jurisdictional question. However, it was implied that even if the Council had the standing, the appropriate forum for the claim was the Claims Tribunal under the 1988 Act. Conclusion: The court held that the National Commission did not have jurisdiction to entertain the claim for compensation arising out of the motor vehicle accident. The 1988 Act provided a specific forum for such claims, and the general provisions of the 1986 Act could not override this. The court noted that the National Commission had previously held in another case that it had no jurisdiction over claims falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Railway Claims Tribunal, reinforcing the principle that specialized tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction over specific types of claims. Final Order: The court allowed the appeal, reversed the order of the National Commission, and held that the National Commission had no jurisdiction to award compensation in this case. However, the court directed that the compensation already paid to the widow and child of the deceased under its earlier order should not be recovered, and no costs were ordered.
|
