Question

synopsis of appeal.........​

Answer 1

Answer:

Explanation:

This  Appeal  Petition  involves  determination  of whether  the  Order  of  the  National  Consumer Disputes  Redressal  Commission  (in  short  the National Commission) was defective in law and whether  it  was  right  in  overlooking several important questions of law, viz.\

a)  Whether the  provisions  of  the  Consumer Protection  (Amendment)  Act,  2002  (62  of 2002),in  short  the  Act,which becameeffectivefrom 15.03.2003, are applicable to the instant case or not?

b)  When  the  Respondents  herein  have  shown scant  regard  to  consumer  interests,  for several  years,  even  after  the  loss  suffered by them were highlighted,and also wilfully disregarded   the   orders   of   the   National Commission,in  spite  of  the  Commission taking cognizance of the same, is it not a fit case  for  the  award  of  ‘Punitive Damages’,

as  provided underSection  14(1)(d)  of  the Act ?

c)  When  the  National  Commissionconcluded that   huge   number   of   consumers   had suffered   loss  due   to   the   under-weighed IndaneLPG refills, is it not mandatory that it  shouldhave  invoked  Section  14(1)(hb) of the  Consumer  Protection  Act  and  awarded the penalties as provided therein (5% of the value  of  defective  goods  sold  /  services provided) ?

d)  What  should  be  considered  as  adequate cost   to   be   awarded   to   the   Petitioner Voluntary  Consumer  Organisation,  when crores of consumers are affected across the country  and  suffered  losses  estimated  at Rs.750  crores per  year,  and  advocated  for them through   the   National   Commission situated  at over 1600  kms  away,  for  about 7   years,   and   through   29   sittings,   as provided  under  Section  14(1)(i)  of  the  Act?The  National  Commission  itself  awarded Rs. 7,500/-as cost to the Petitioner, for the adjournment of one sitting.

e)  When   the   Respondent   Company   have unduly  enriched  themselves  by  selling Rs.65,764  crores  worth  of  under-filled  LPG refills  and  inflicted  thousands  of  crores  of monetary    loss    on    the    unsuspecting consumers across the country, should they not  have  paid  a  minimum  of Rs.3,288.21 crores, as provided under Section 14(1)(hb), to the Consumer Welfare Fund ?

f)  Taking  the  provisions  of  Section  14(1)(d), 14(1)(hb)   and   14(1)(i)   into   consideration and  the  case  in  totality,  should  the  prayer of the Petitioner, for the award of 5% of loss suffered   by   the   consumers   in   a   year, amounting  to Rs.750 crores  should  have been awarded or not ?

g)  Given  the  facts and  circumstances  of  the case, whether the order in the instant case should have been reviewed by the National Commissionor   not,   as   provided   under Section  22(2)of  the  Consumer  Protection Act?

h)  Doesthe provision “error apparent on the face of the record”, stated in Section 22(2)of the Consumer Protection Act,deemed to

mean  only  simple  errors  or  serious  errors as  well  in  the  judgment/order,  involving judicial fallibility?

i)  The Appeal Petition also involves determination  of  whether  the  Order  of  the National Commission is contrary to law.