Compensation for heritage ornaments under consumer protection Act & Constitutionality of consumer protection regulations 2005

 

Compensation for heritage ornaments under consumer protection Act & Constitutionality of consumer protection regulations 2005

 

The Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Sk. Sahedul Haque

Page 35 2012 SCC online

Facts: The Complainant/Opposite Party herein took a gold loan from the

Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 38,700/- only on condition of payment of

Compensation for heritage ornaments  by the Complainant on the valuation made by the said bank. On availing of the said loan by the Complainant, he paid interest to the bank as agreed on. But the petitioner sent a notice to the Complainant intimating that the dues had been adjusted against the gold and that a pay order of Rs. 4,828/-. The Complainant/Opposite Party herein filed a complaint before the learned Kolkata District Forum, praying for compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs only in place of the heritage gold ornaments, to replace the ornaments in respect of the rest amount of Rs. 23,700/- and other reliefs.

Issue: Whether the compensation is granted to the Complainant?

Decision: Accordingly, the District Forum allowed the complaint case directing the Petitioner to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lakh only in place of

the heritage gold ornament together with a further direction to replace the

gold ornaments in respect of the rest amount of Rs. 23,700/-. The Appellant

preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, who directed the Appellant to replace the equivalent quantum

of gold in addition to the payment of compensation of Rs. 1 lakh only to the

Complainant for causing loss of the heritage gold ornaments for ever and

harassment to the Complainant. The Petitioner therefore filed an application

before the WB HC challenging the decision of the Commission, the petitioner

has any grievance against the order of the State Commission in an appeal,

there is a provision for preferring a revision before the National Commission

in accordance with Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Since there was an alternate efficacious remedy available by filing an

appropriate application before the National Commission, in cases where an

alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also

operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power under Article 227 by the

High Court, the superintendence conferred under Article 227 is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts/tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. Thus the petition was rejected.

 

 

Constitutionality of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005

 

Surendra Mohan Arora v. HDFC Bank Ltd.36

Facts: Appellant filed complaint before District Forum against Respondent

no. 1/HDFC Bank Ltd for indulging in unfair trade practice on ground of

failure to provide professional services to appellant resulting in prepayment

of loan to Respondent no. 1 seeking to levy a penalty for pre-payment. Districtinterest by the Complainant on the valuation made by the said bank. On availing of the said loan by the Complainant, he paid interest to the bank as agreed on. But the petitioner sent a notice to the Complainant intimating that the dues had been adjusted against the gold and that a pay order of Rs. 4,828/-. The Complainant/Opposite Party herein filed a complaint before the learned Kolkata District Forum, praying for compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs only in place of the heritage gold ornaments, to replace the ornaments in respect of the rest amount of Rs. 23,700/- and other reliefs.

Issue: Whether the compensation is granted to the Complainant?

Decision: Accordingly, the District Forum allowed the complaint case

directing the Petitioner to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lakh only in place of

the heritage gold ornament together with a further direction to replace the

gold ornaments in respect of the rest amount of Rs. 23,700/-. The Appellant

preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, who directed the Appellant to replace the equivalent quantum

of gold in addition to the payment of compensation of Rs. 1 lakh only to the

Complainant for causing loss of the heritage gold ornaments for ever and

harassment to the Complainant. The Petitioner therefore filed an application

before the WB HC challenging the decision of the Commission, the petitioner

has any grievance against the order of the State Commission in an appeal,

there is a provision for preferring a revision before the National Commission

in accordance with Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Since there was an alternate efficacious remedy available by filing an

appropriate application before the National Commission, in cases where an

alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also

operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power under Article 227 by the

High Court, the superintendence conferred under Article 227 is to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts/tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. Thus the petition was rejected.