By Kanu Sarda, IANS
New Delhi : With three of its orders stayed by the Delhi High Court, the State Consumer Redressal Forum chief says the higher judiciary’s interference is harming the “interest of consumers”.
“We at the state consumer court are working really hard to dispose of cases at a faster pace, but with the interference of the higher judiciary, things are not falling in place,” Justice J.D. Kapoor, president of the redressal forum, told IANS.
Kapoor is the man credited with empowering Delhi’s consumers. When he became the consumer forum president a few years ago, there were 11,000 cases pending with the body and now the figure has come down to 1,100.
His strong remark comes after the high court first stayed the consumer forum’s order of a Rs.5 million fine on mobile service provider Airtel and later vacated the stay.
“I don’t know what made them stay our order first and then vacate it. This is not fair and expected out of responsible judiciary,” said Kapoor.
The state consumer court had penalised Airtel for continuing to allow unsolicited calls and SMSs by various companies to consumers despite earlier orders by the forum to stop.
“It was due to our initiative that the telecom authorities were forced to introduce the National ‘Do Not Call’ Registry and number portability so that consumers could benefit. But the mobile service provider went to high court and misled it,” added Kapoor.
However, the consumer who had petitioned the consumer forum went to the high court too and explained the truth behind the case, following which the stay was vacated.
“A consumer comes to court when he/she feels helpless and harassed by the companies. Not many people come to us but those who come feel disappointed when such stays are in place, in a way discouraging the consumers to fight for their rights,” said Kapoor.
Even lawyers representing top business communities try to mislead courts, Kapoor said.
“A legal expert recently told the court that the state consumer forum has no power and jurisdiction to slap a fine on his client. Then we showed him how the law has given us powers to back the interest of consumers,” said Kapoor.
The forum recently ordered Go Airlines (India) Pvt Ltd, the firm operating the no-frills airline Go Air, to pay Rs.15,000 to each passenger of a flight that was cancelled due to a technical snag – but the order was stayed by the high court.
The high court passed the stay order on a petition filed by Go Airlines, challenging the Delhi State Consumer Commission’s order directing it to pay Rs.15,000 to each of the passengers booked on the cancelled flight.
Senior lawyer Rajiv Nayar, appearing for Go Airlines, contended that the consumer forum had no power to proceed under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Even if such powers existed, the forum could not have decided to extend the benefit of its order to all other passengers of the flight (besides the petitioner in the consumer court) without informing the airline, Nayar said.
ICICI Bank, whose recovery agents have sometimes been accused of arm-twisting clients, earned a similar breather. The Delhi High Court, on an appeal filed by the bank, stayed the imposition of a Rs.5 million fine in the Tapan Bose case by the consumer forum.
The forum had fined the bank for employing “goons” to recover a car that was bought with a loan by Bose and for which a couple of instalments were due. It had deplored the practice of banks intimidating customers to pay instalments.