• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

Avoid courting trouble

R Desikan

In any consumer dispute, it is preferable to settle the matter out of court. The courts should be resorted to only when the claim is reasonable and the opposite party is callous or unwilling to negotiate.

It is also in the interest of traders, suppliers and manufacturers to respond adequately to consumer complaints and steer clear of litigation. However, whenever the errant party behaves irresponsibly, the courts must serve the maximum punishment to serve as a deterrent. Often, I feel that the quantum of compensation awarded by the consumer courts is grossly inadequate.

I am reproducing some decisions taken by consumer courts as reported in magazines such as Insight, Consumer Voice and so on. These are clear-cut verdicts and serve as illustrative examples.

Who pays for rotten potatoes?

The Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the appeal of a potato farmer and ordered a compensation of Rs. 1,37,227.25 for a consignment of potatoes that turned rotten in a cold storage facility. The Commission sa id, ``If perishable commodities spoil in the cold storage for whatever reason, the owner of the storage is liable to pay compensation.''

The farmer, Deena Nath, had deposited 471 bags of potatoes in a cold storage run by Avadh Wood Products. Three years later, when Deena Nath went to take delivery of the bags he found the contents rotten. In addition, 300 bags were missing. The owner of the cold storage had claimed that due to power fluctuations and interruptions, he could not guarantee the safe-keeping of the potatoes. But the court decided in favour of the farmer.

Is tubectomy fool-proof?

The complainant, Kalpana, claimed that despite undergoing sterilisation, she had conceived a baby after two years. The State Commission ruled that merely because Kalpana had become pregnant after the tubectomy, the doctor, Sandhya Rani, could not be accused of deficiency in service. Moreover, Kalpana had not developed any complication after the operation. The commission quoted from a book on clinical obstetrics which said that tubectomy was not always 100 per cent successf ul, whatever be the technique employed.

Is the courier responsible for a job loss?

Dr. Shinkre had applied for a specialist's job in the Sultanate of Oman. He was selected after an interview and had received an appointment letter together with a specimen contract. Dr. Shinkre had completed all the documentation and sent it throug h SkyPak couriers at a cost of Rs. 1,100. SkyPak had misplaced the consignment and Dr. Shinkre failed to get the job. His claim for Rs. 50,000 compensation was awarded by the District Forum, North Goa, along with Rs. 1,000 towards costs.

SkyPak had filed a petition in the Consumer Disputes Redressal State Commission of Goa which held that Dr. Shinkre had failed to produce any proof showing that he had lost the job because the consignment did not reach on time. At the same time, the fact that SkyPak failed to deliver the documents could not be overlooked. Therefore, the commission awarded Dr. Shinkre Rs. 10,000 compensation.

Vehicle insurance against terrorism

During an agitation against the exploitation of tribals in Andhra Pradesh, a lorry was diverted by force and set on fire. The insurance company claimed that any loss or damage caused by war, invasion, the act of foreign enemy, hostilities or war-like operation (whether war can be declared or not), civil war assuming the proportion of or amounting to military rising, rebellion and so on are not covered. The Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission conten ded that the stand taken by the insurance company was not consistent with its policy. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the State Commission's ruling and ordered the insurance company to pay the amount.

Technology park penalised for unfair trade practice

The popularity of technology parks is increasing by the day. The following order against a private technology park would be of interest to readers. Manju Aggarwal had deposited an advance of Rs. 15,000 for a residential plot in a private technolog y park at the rate of Rs. 4,000 per sq. ft. She paid some more money later. Later, she came to know that a district magistrate had declared the colony unauthorised. The MRTP Commission held that Manju had been cheated by the promoters of the park wh o had indulged in unfair trade practice. The promoters were ordered to refund the money along with 18 per cent interest. An additional compensation of Rs. 5,000 and the litigation cost of Rs. 3,000 were also awarded.

I would like to inform readers that the third set of amendments to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is likely to be placed before Parliament during the monsoon session. These amendments would remove some of the anomalies present in the Act.

The author is former chairman, Federation of Consumer Organisations, Tamil Nadu. He can be reached at rdesikan@vsnl.com