Case: P. Saraswathi Devi Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Redressal Commission &amp; Others

The writ petition is filed challenging a circular dated 24-06-2010 issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Redressal Commission, the 1st respondent (for short the State Commission). Through the said circular, the State Commission insisted that in any complaint filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) against any firm or company, the complainant shall file a certificate from the Registrar of Firms or the Registrar of Companies, as the case may be, showing the names of partners or directors as well as the memorandum of association and the articles of association. The petitioner raised several grounds in challenge to the sameWhen a Division Bench of this Court comprising of Justice N.V. Ramana (as his Lordship then was) and Justice P. Durga Prasad took up the matter for hearing, the respondent relied upon an order dated 09-02-2011 passed in Writ Petition No.2545 of 2011 by a Division Bench of this Court comprising of Justice Ghulam Mohammed and Justice K.G. Shankar in which the validity of the circular was upheld. Taking the same into account, a detailed order dated 05-09-2011 was passed by the Bench which heard this case, expressing the view that the order in Writ Petition No. 2545 of 2011 requires reconsideration. Since both the Benches were of same strength, the matter was required to be placed before the Honble the Chief Justice for necessary orders, to examine the feasibility of constituting a Full Bench, to get an authoritative pronouncement on the issue. Accordingly, the matter is placed before us.

Reasoning:
From a perusal of this, it becomes manifest that one of the important objectives was to provide speedy and simple redressal to the consumer disputes. In categorical terms, the Parliament made it clear that the fora to be established for this purpose are going to bel in nature and even while requiring them to observe the principles of natural justice, they were relieved of the rigour of complicated procedureThe redressal mechanisms at the district, state and national level have been brought into existence and they are functioningThere is not even a residuary provision which confers in it, any power of superintendence upon the district fora. However, being the apex forum within the State, the administrative control over the district fora can be inferredThe manner in which a district forum has to function is dealt with under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. Commensurate with the statement of objects and reasons, these provisions simply provide for submission of complaint by a consumer, issuance of a notice by the forum to the opposite party and adjudication thereof in a very informal mannerFrom this, it becomes clear that whenever any complaint is submitted against a partnership firm or a company, the complainant must not only furnish the required details thereof, but also must enclose certificate of registration of firms in case of a partnership firm and certificate of registration, memorandum of association and articles of association, in case, if the complaint is against a company. It is a matter of common knowledge that the relief in the proceedings under the Act are mostly against firms or companies as regards the deficiency in the service or defect in manufactureEven where an aggrieved person files a suit, it would be sufficient if he furnishes the particulars of the defendants against whom he claims relief. Order XXX of CPC deals with the suits that are filed against firms and other persons carrying on business. It is only under Rule 2 of Order XXX that a firm, which figures as a plaintiff, is placed under obligation to declare the names and places of residences of the persons comprised in the firm, when demanded by the defendants. Such a requirement is not provided when the firm or company is shown as a defendant. When this is the arrangement in a regular suit, the question of a more stringent or complicated procedure being prescribed in relation to a complaint submitted before a consumer forum, does not ariseWhile examining the legality of the impugned circular, first, the source of power under which it is issued needs to be verified. The second step is to examine whether it conforms to the relevant provisions of the Act or the letter and spirit thereofOn the first aspect, we have not come across any provision that confers power upon the State Commission to issue such a circular. In the preceding paragraphs, we have given an indication that being the superior forum at a state level, some regulatory power can be inferred in favour of the State Commission. However, when any step taken in that behalf is put to question, it can be sustained, if only a specific provision exists therefor. This is particularly so, when the aggrieved party contends that the circular is contrary to the ActComing to the second aspect, we find it difficult to sustain the provision. Sections 12 and 13 that regulate the proceedings before a District Forum do not speak of any such requirement. The rules framed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh are also silent on this. A perusal of Sections 12 and 13 of the Act discloses that a complainant has just to file, if not drop a complaint before the forum, ventilating his grievance. The manner in which a complaint is to be filed is provided for under Section 12 and the steps to be taken thereon, are indicated in Section 13. Section 12 and clauses (a) and (b) of Section 13 of the Act read:When such is the simplicity of the procedure stipulated under the Act, there cannot be any justification to place restrictions and burden upon the complainants through the circular. When a plaintiff in a suit is not placed under obligation to furnish the details as to the composition or registration of a firm or company that is shown as a defendant, it is just unimaginable as to how a complainant in a proceedings under the Act can be required to furnish such details in respect of a firm or company that is shown as a respondent in the complaint. The circular runs contrary to the letter and spirit of the Act which is reflected in Clause 4 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons that has been extracted in the preceding paragraphsAttention was not focussed on to the relevant provisions of the Act and the comparative provisions of the CPC, much less to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act. We have already pointed out that the circular would place a complainant before a forum, in a more disadvantageous and difficult situation, than a plaintiff in an ordinary suit, before a civil Court. When the intention of the Parliament was to provide a speedy and simple remedy in comparison to a suit, the step taken by the State Commission making the proceedings more stringent cannot be sustained. The view taken by the Bench which heard Writ Petition No. 2545 of 2011 cannot be treated as an authoritative pronouncement on the circular, nor a correct statement of law.