After four years of losing its power the Consumer Protection
Act (CPA) in Karnataka has got back its teeth. In a landmark judgment the
Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the CPA and has said
that the redressal agencies set up under the CPA are empowered to execute its
orders on its own.Disposing off the petition filed by the Vishwabharathi House
Building Co-operative Society (VBHBCS) of Bangalore the Apex Court has
virtually put an end to all the controversies surrounding the validity of CPA.
This is a boon for consumers particularly of Kamataka,who were finding the
orders worthless.
The story goes back to 1999 when Karnataka high court in the
case of Paramjit Singh Vs. Union of India decided that Section 27 of the CPA
was against the Constitution. Section 27 relates to enforcement of the orders
of the Forum and Commission and the powers to imprison in case the orders are
not followed. As a result the forums and commission in Karnataka lost their
teeth thereby denying consumers the benefit of CPA.
The Government of Karnataka went on appeal in the Supreme
Court against this order. In the meantime the (VBHBCS) also went on appeal
against another order of the Division Bench of the Karnataka high court which
had upheld the constitutional validity of the CPA.
In its appeal, the VBHBCS has raised several issues
questioning the constitutional validity of CPA. It argued that without amending
Article 368 no forums can be created as it would result in conflict of
decisions. Further it argued that Parliament could not enact the CPA by
establishing forums which are substitutes of the civil courts for it struck at
the independence of the judiciary.
Refusing to buy these arguments, Supreme Court has said that
Parliament and State Legislatures are competent to create courts and tribunals
as provided in Schedule VII of the Constitution. Referring the Section 3 of the
CPA the court has ruled that the argument of VBHBCS is fallacious inasmuch as
the provisions of the CPA are in addition to the provisions of any other law
for the time being in force. The CPA, the court said, supplements and not
supplants the jurisdiction of the civil courts of other statutory authorities.
Regarding the powers of the redressal agencies for execution
of its orders, the Supreme Court has held that Section 27 is akin to Order 39
Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure and provisions of the Contempt of Courts
Act. Further, the CPA is a self contained code and has power to execute their own
order. Hence redressal agencies need not send all their orders to civil courts for execution.They have full powers to execute orders including imposing fine
or imprisonment.
For more details,
No comments:
Post a Comment