Law of Torts, MV Act and

Consumer Protection
eSeries
S.27
 Legal Services
• Consider the case P. Krishna Rao v. Mandipalli Devaiah MANU/CF/0298/2002:
[Facts:
It was submitted by the complainant that he had paid fees to the lawyers but they
failed in their duty in properly drafting the plaint in a suit filed by the complainant
In the plaint drafted by the lawyers, they had taken extremely inconsistent stand
This fact was admitted by the opposite party
Issue: Whether there is deficiency in service
Decision:
District Forum allowed the complaint and directed refund of the fees paid by the
respondent with damages of Rs.1,000 and cost of Rs.300
The State Commission and the NCDR upheld the decision
The NCDR stated that the deficiency in a particular one case certainly not mean a
reflection on the petitioners for all cases handled and being handled by them]
• Consider the case of Ram Raksh Pal Gupta v. Ranjana II(2002)C PJ118(NC ):
This matter is important considering how the NCDR has directed Consumer forums to consider
adjournments in the face of strike by lawyers
The NCDR stated:
“We have to guard ourselves against the pernicious practice of strike by lawyers
spreading to the Fora under the Act
Non-appearance of a lawyer in a Court or Tribunal or any Authority after being engaged and having
charged his fee could itself be deficiency in service on his part
There is already a public criticism that Fora under the Act are fast becoming civil courts where
adjournments are granted as a matter of course
This should not be permitted otherwise the purpose of the Act will be lost
State Commissions should ensure that no adjournment is granted on the ground of
strike by lawyers
If the lawyers do not appear before District Forum or State Commission, it can decide the matter on the
basis of the record, if it so chooses
A request for adjournment on the ground of strike by lawyers is not justifiable ground
for adjourning the matter”
• Consider the case of Sou Pratibha Waman Bhava v. Yashwant Laxman Datar 2007(1)C .P.C .378:
[Facts:
The complainant landlord had filed an eviction suit against his tenants
The execution application was dismissed for default as his advocate withdrew his vakalatnama
According to the complainant, the counsel withdrew it without any intimation
Issue: Whether there is deficiency in service
Decision:
The State Commission found that the counsel sent not one but three notices to the complainant dated indicating his
intention to withdraw his appearance mainly on the ground that the proper instructions were not given to him
The complainant had sought clarification from the counsel on whether he desired to withdraw from engagements in
one matter or from all the matters
The complainant then did not show any keenness to retain the services of the counsel
Professional fees was also not paid by the complainant
The Civil Judge had permitted his withdrawal from appearance
The State Commission held that An Advocate who neither gets appropriate instructions, nor gets his fees and who is
asked whether he wanted to withdraw from all cases or one case, indicating least interest in retaining him cannot
be expected to continue. This provides sufficient cause for him to withdraw from the case after giving reasonably
sufficient notice
The NCDR upheld the decision of the State Commission]
• Consider the case of DK Gandhi, PS, National Institute of
Communicable Diseases v. M Mathias III(2007)C PJ337(NC ):
This matter is important considering how the NCDR firmly
establishes that lawyers provide service under the Consumer
Protection Act and deficiency of service can be alleged against
them
“The contract for service between the client and the lawyer is a
bilateral contract, where on receipt of fees, the lawyer would
appear and represent the matter on behalf of his client
This is furthered by the fact that even after discussion the client
may not engage the Advocate or the Advocate may refuse to accept
the brief”
 Electricity Services
• Consider the case of PSEB v. Guriqbal Singh Batra 2003(1)C .P.C .21:
[Facts:
The Complainant, Guriqbal was the tenant of one Tarlochan since November 15, 1993
The owner of the premises had an electric connection for medium industrial supply vide Account No. MS/101, with sanctioned
load of 75 KW at the aforesaid premises
The Complainant in the aforesaid premises was running a manufacturing unit under the name and style - Delta Rubber Mills and
was consuming electricity through the aforesaid Account No. 101 and was having more than ten workers at his factory premises
The Electricity Board had installed a power meter bearing Sr. No. 9086135 and a light meter bearing No. 760000 having Account
No. 101 as aforesaid
These two meters were destroyed as a result of the scuffle between two employees of the Complainant
A report was lodged with the Board for change of the meters as well as to replace the seals vide letter dated 3.2.1997
The officials of the Electricity Board visited the premises on 20.2.1997 and replaced the meters with new ones having numbers
Power Meter HK-4695560 and light meter 0044963
The old meters were not removed in contravention of instruction No. 109 as contained in the Sales Manual
The Complainant continued paying the bills as per readings recorded on the new meters thereafter upto November, 1997
On 2.1.1998, in the absence of the Complainant, some officials of the Electricity Board reported to have checked the old meters
and reported glass of the meters broken as well as seals.
On that basis a demand of Rs. 2,08,720/- was stated to have been raised and the electric supply was disconnected to the
premises
All the efforts of the Complainant to get the electric connection re-installed went in vain
(Continued…)
Issue: Whether there is deficiency in service
Decision:
The State Commission on the ground that the the Electricity
Board could not point out any instruction contained in the
Sales Manual for keeping the old meter at the premises while
replacing the same with a new one stated that the Board
having wrongly not removed the damaged meters cannot take
advantage of its own wrong and harass the Complainant
The State Commission held deficiency in service on part of the
Board and directed it to restore the electricity
The NCDR upheld the decision]
• Consider the case of Haryana State Electricity Board v. Anand Medicos
MANU/CF/0174/2003:
[Facts:
Complainants had alleged in the complaint that they were running a chemist shop
and during a particular night, the fire broke out in the shop
This resulted in destroying of furniture. T.V. Counter, refrigerator, stock of medicines and
other articles which were lying in the shop
The complainant alleged that in the supply of electricity to the shop premises, there was
huge fluctuation in the electric current with the result that short
circuit was caused in the shop premises resulting in high
voltages and destroying of everything in the shop
Complainants alleged that they
suffered a loss of Rs. 3,08,000
Issue: Whether there is deficiency of service
(Continued…)
Decision:
The District Commission relegated the complainants to the
Civil Court
The State Commission felt otherwise in appeal
It noted that there was short circuiting of electric current in
the shop premises of complainants which was the result of
negligence attributed to the Electricity Board
Accordingly it granted compensation of Rs. 2,19,316 based
on the assessment of the surveyor
The NCDR upheld the decision of the State Commission]
• Consider the case of Accounts Officer, Jharkhand State Electricity Board v. Anwar Ali II(2008)C
PJ284(NC ):
This matter is important as the NCDR interpreted the maintainability of a complaint to the
Consumer Fora, where the complaint if under the Electricity Act
The NCDR primarily considered S.173, 174 and 175 of the Electricity Act and held that:
“(i) The intention of the Parliament is not to bar the jurisdiction of the consumer fora under the
CP Act. The Electricity Act also impliedly does not bar the jurisdiction of the consumer fora ;
(ii) On the contrary, it saves the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Atomic Energy
Act, 1962 and the Railways Act, 1989 ;
(iii) By non-obstante clause, it has been provided that if anything in the Electricity Act, Rules or
Regulations is inconsistent with any provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, it shall have no
effect ; and
(iv) Provisions of the Electricity Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for
the time being in force. The act supplements the existing redressal forum, namely, the
Consumer For a
(Continued…)
Therefore, Consumer of electrical energy provided by the Electricity Board
or other Private Company, is a consumer under the CP Act and a complaint
alleging any deficiency on the part of the Board or other private company
including any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in quality,
nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by
or under any law or in pursuance of any contract in relation to service, is
maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act
Against the Assessment Order passed under Section 126 of the Electricity
Act, a consumer has option either to file Appeal under Section 127 of the
Electricity Act or to approach the Consumer Fora by filing complaint. He
has to select either of the remedy. However, before entertaining the
complaint, the Consumer Fora would direct the Consumer to deposit an
amount equal to one-third of the assessed amount with the licensee.”