Concurrent Jurisdiction, What Then?

By way of the provisions contained in section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) which says the CPA shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law in force, consumer courts can exercise jurisdiction even where other courts have concurrent jurisdiction.

Guidelines: The National Commission (NC), the highest consumer court, has in several judgements provided guidelines as to such powers of the consumer court.

In an order on December 22, 1989, in the case Special Machines Ltd versus Punjab National Bank and Others, the NC concluded that the CPA did not contemplate the determination of complicated issues of fact involving taking of elaborate oral evidence and adducing of voluminous documentary evidence and a detailed scrutiny and assessment of such evidence.

 

It further said that even in simple cases if it appeared to the concerned court that the issues raised could not be determined without taking elaborate oral and documentary evidence, the court could decline to exercise jurisdiction and direct the party to ordinary remedy by way of a a civil suit.

Misuse: Sadly, this order began to be used as a handy excuse by the consumer courts to not exercise their jurisdiction in several cases on the ground that the issues involved were very complicated.

The NC alarmed by this development held in the case S.K. Abdul Sukur versus State of Orissa and Others in April 1991 that the ruling in the Special Machine case had been taken out of context. It observed that consumer courts should not refer complaints to civil courts just to avoid the adjudication of important consumer disputes.

The NC reiterated this in Prem Singh and Others versus United India Insurance Company Ltd in January 1992. The NC said that only such cases which needed detailed investigation and were too complicated for consumer courts to decide and which related to fraud, etc. only should be referred to ordinary civil courts for adjudication.

Exceptions: Where the legislature has set up special tribunals for disposing of specific kinds of disputes, the consumer courts will not ordinarily assume jurisdiction.

If a consumer loses goods sent by rail, would a consumer court be able to assume jurisdiction even if the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) is functioning at the same place? Here one would have to refer to the preamble of the RCT Act. The preamble says that the RCT has been set up for determining claims against a railway administration for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to it to be carried by railway or for the refund of fares or freight or for compensation for death or injury to passengers occurring as a result of railway accidents and for matters connected therewith.

If the complaint relates to one of the above matters, then the consumer court will not entertain it. But if it is a matter over which the RCT has no jurisdiction, then the consumer court may do so. Thus if a death or injury occurs not as a result of an accident but because of deficiency in service on the part of the railway administration, then the consumer court will have jurisdiction.

The consumer courts have also made the railways liable to pay compensation for lapses such as providing inadequate facilities in the first class and for delays.