Scope of consumer complaint

Subject: Scope of consumer complaint                                  Forum: The National Consumer Commission

Title:Poonam Chambers vs Aluplex India Ltd                      Case No.: FIRST APPEAL NO. 383 OF 2011                             Date of Decision:01-02-2013

Facts: OP was provided work contract and as OP left work without completing it, complainant terminated contract and got it completed from other agencies and filed complaint for recovery of amount due to deficiency of service.

Decision Fora below: Learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed complaint at admission stage on the ground that contract was terminated by the complainant earlier to filing of complaint, hence, no relationship of consumer and service provider subsisted between the parties and there is no consumer dispute under Consumer Protection Act. 

National Commission said: “once the parties entered into a contract to provide service and the latter stopped work, the aggrieved party is entitled to file claim on account of deficiency of service even after termination of contract. Merely by termination of work contract it cannot be inferred that there was no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties” at Para 6 and further at Para 7 “Merely because word ‘Commercial’ exists in the name of complainant, it cannot be inferred that work contract was given for commercial purposes”

no levying any collection charges for mere issuance of citation_WRIC(A)_56175_2011

Following question was referred to larger Bench to decide in WRIT - C No. - 56175 of 2011 titled as Mahrajwa And Others v State Of U.P. Thru Its Secy. And Others  by the Allahabad High Court:

Whether decision in Mange Ram & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Others, 2010 (2) CRC 216 in so far as it takes the view that there is no provision under any of the Acts for levying any collection charges for mere issuance of citation or sale proclamation is correct; or, the decision in Chinta Mani Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2011 (1) AWC 637 holding that provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 279 do not contain any provision for an absolute waiver of recovery charges where the citation has been issued under sub-section (1) and the charging section empowers the Collector to raise such demand subject to the rules and provision of Revenue Recovery Act U.P. Act No.37 of 2001, is correct.

Bench having three judges namely Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J., Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J. and Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J. has said:

“The issuance of recovery certificate is a ministerial job. If no concrete further steps have been taken and the arrears have not been realised by them and instead the defaulter pays the amount of arrears directly to the creditor or to the person to whom it is due then it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the State authorities have recovered the amount of arrears.” At page 20-21

……………………………………………….

Referring and discussing various judgment the bench said:

“From the aforesaid decisions, it is absolutely clear that it has to be seen as to under what Act the recovery  has been initiated. Whether it is under 1890 Act, 1950 Act or 1973 Act. If the recovery proceedings have been initiated under 1890 Act then in that event if the recovery is being made under Section 3 of the Act then cost of recovery would be 10% of the amount stated in the certificate. However, if recovery certificate has been issued but no recovery had  been  made  by  the  State  authorities,  who  had  issued  the  recovery certificate as for example the defaulter directly deposits the amount or the recovery certificate is withdrawn or cancelled for any reason whatsoever then in that event there is no question of charging any costs of recovery.” At page 23

…………………………………….        

We are, therefore, in respectful agreement with the view taken by this Court in the case of Mange Ram  &  Anr.(supra)  and  hold  that  the  decision  in  the  case  of  Chinta Mani(supra) does not lay down the correct law at page 24