MADHUKUMARAN NAIR P vs GRAND WIRES AND CONDUCTORS P LTD

-THE above revision is preferred from the order dated 28th November, 2006 passed by the CDRF, Kottayam on I. A. 815/2005 in O. P. 35/05. The complaint in O. P. 35/05 was filed by the revision petitioner as complainant against the respondents 1 to 4 as opposite parties 1 to 4 claiming compensation for the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3. The complainant has also requested for invoking the provisions of Section 14 (1) (hb) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

THE case of the revision petitioner/complainant is that the electric cables manufactured by the 1st opposite party and distributed/sold through the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 were found defective in nature; that the said electric cables were not maintaining the ISI standards, even though the 1st opposite party claims that the electric cables manufactured by them are having ISI standard. At the instance of the complainant the electrical cables were subjected to lab test at the Laboratory of Bureau of Indian Standards, Trivandrum (4th opposite party) and the report would support of the case of the complainant. The aforesaid complaint is at the evidence stage. The complainant herein filed the I. A. 815/2005 to direct the 1st opposite party to produce their audited accounts for the years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, in order to work out 5% of their turn over for the purpose of invoking the provisions of Section 14 (1) (hb) of the Consumer Protection Act.

The aforesaid I. A. was opposed by the opposite parties stating that the petition is filed only to harass the opposite party.

THE lower Forum after hearing both sides came to the conclusion that the present petition I. A. 815/2005 is premature in nature and thereby the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the present revision is preferred by the complainant in O. P. 35/2005. The point for consideration is whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the lower Forum on I. A. 815/2005 in O. P. 305/2005.

THE Point : The revision petitioner/complainant filed the aforesaid I. A. for getting the data to assess the sales turn over of the 1st opposite party with respect to the sale of the defective electric cables manufactured and sold by the 1st opposite party. Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as follows: (1) If, after the proceeding conducted under Section 13, the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to (do) one or more of the following things namely: (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (d ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (e ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (f ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (g ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (h ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ha ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (hb) to pay such sum as may be determined by it, if it is of the opinion that loss or injury has been suffered by a large number of consumers who are not indenifiable conveniently: provided that the minimum amount of sum so payable shall not be less than five per cent of the value of such defective goods sold or services provided, as the case may be, to such consumers: provided further that the amount so obtained shall be credited in favour of such person and utilized in such manner as may be prescribed:

So Section 14 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act would make it abundantly clear that the proceedings or the provisions of the Section 14 can be invoked only after the conclusion of the proceedings under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act. It would also show that the provisions of Section 14 can be invoked only in the event the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffered from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations about the service are proved. So it is crystal clear that only after entering into the definite finding regarding the alleged unfair trade practice or deficiency of service the lower Forum can invoke the provisions of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. Admittedly, in the present case the complaint in O. P. 35/05 is at the evidence stage and that the lower Forum has not entered into a definite finding as to whether there occurred any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the 1st opposite party (1st respondent ). If that is the position, the lower Forum can only be justified in treating the petition in I. A. 815/2005 as premature. It is further to be noted that no prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioner/complainant at the present stage of the O. P. 35/05. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that the lower Forum has not totally disallowed the case of the revision petitioner or of the lower Forum has not expressed any hesitation or reluctance in invoking the provisions of Section 14 (1) (hb) of the Consumer Protection Act. On the other hand, the lower Forum has only directed the revision petitioner/complainant to wait for passing of the final order under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act in the complaint in O. P. 35/05. We are of the view, that there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety on the part of the lower Forum in passing the impugned order on I. A. 815/05 in O. P. 35/05. Thus the present revision lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence we do so. In the result, the revision is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. R. P. dismissed.