A Internship Report On State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum.docx

A REPORT ON INTERNSHIP EXPERIENCE AT “CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE AND REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAIPUR”

Internship from 08/06/2015 to 29/06/2015

Submitted by: Abhishek Mishra Mats Law School Raipur

Submitted to: Mr.MahendraRathore Registrar, CGSCDRC

Introduction about commission Consumer Court is the special purpose court, mainly in India, that deals with cases regarding consumer disputes and grievances. These are judiciary set ups by the government to protect the consumer rights. Its main function is to maintain the fair practices by the sellers towards consumers. Consumers can file a case against a seller if they are harassed or exploited by sellers. The court will only give a verdict in favor of the consumers/customers if they have proof of exploitation, i.e., bills or other documents. If a consumer does not have the proper documents required for filing a case then it would be very difficult for the consumer to win or even file a case Types 1.National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): A national level court works for the whole country and deals with amount more than ₹10 million 2.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC): A state level court works at the state level with cases valuing less than ₹10 million 3.District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (DCDRF): A district level court works at the district level with cases valuing up to ₹2 million

Consumer movement The consumer movement as a social force originated with the necessity of protecting and promoting the interests of consumers against unethical and unfair trade practices. Rampant food shortages, hoarding, black marketing, adulteration of food and edible oil gave birth to the consumer movement in an organised form in the 1960s. The movement succeeded in bringing pressure. A major step was taken in 1986 by the Indian government with the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 (COPRA) Objectives The main function of consumer court is to provide some extra privilege to the consumers and to maintain fair practice by the seller or the service provider towards the consumer. Submitting complaint is very simple and consumer has no need to hire any lawyer. Approaching a consumer court is very simple and extremely cheap as you can represent yourself without having to hire a lawyer and not required to pay any court fee but just a nominal fee

(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction— (a) to entertain— (i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore; and (ii) appeals against the orders of any District Forum within the State; and (b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction,— (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the State Commission is given or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

Jurisdiction of the State Commission.—

CASELAWS 1] A case between Laxmi Narayan VS Manager, Vandana Auto, The regional transportation office and bajaj auto ltd. Passed on 21 may 2015 with case number 688/2014 state consumer dispute Redressal Forum, Raipur Laxmi Narayan Dhruw son of RamsinghDhruw Resident of v.v. vihar, Gali No. 5 Mova.…… Applicant VERSUS

1. Vandana auto, manager, ramakund G. E. road Raipur 2. Regional transportation office, Bhanpuri, Raipur 3. Bajaj Auto limited, Managing Director, Akurdi, Pune ………….. Respondent

(Complaint Application U/s 12 of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986) QUORUM: SH. R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT SMT. SHEILA THAKKAR Per R.S. Sharma, president 1. This complaint application has been filed by laxmi Narayan under section 12 of the consumer protection Act, 1986 against the respondents, for enforcement of the orders dated 21.05.15 passed by this forum in consumer complaint no. 688 of 17.11.2014and as affirmed by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur. It is pleaded that on 27.05.2014 the applicant had purchased a motorcycle Avenger 220 Dtsi of red colour but in invoice and registration book, it was reported of blue colour, whose information was soon granted to respondent no. 1 but after that it was not cleared by respondent, beside that applicant moving several rounds to registration office for 7 months. Later on The sophisticated applicant claimed for compensation. 2. The respondent no. 1 and 3 pleaded that by error the change in colour had registered in invoice bill. But later on instantly the respondent has been proceed to make improvements over the invoice bill, since the applicant had sent all his documents to RTO for registration of vehicle. So the blue colour of vehicle is mentioned in registration book but they also proceed to make improvements on registration book. The respondent no. 1 also informed to applicant about the improved documents but the applicant spitefully evaded tocollect the documents.

3. Respondent no. 2 Pleaded that the registration of questionable motor vehicle has dealt by the existing RTO procedure called dealer point registration process. In this process the computer system has allotted a registration mark when the tax is payoff which is clear by the annexure 1 submitted by applicant in which the vehicle colour was shown blue, whomsoever in printed form no 21 in colour column which was Hand –cut rectified which were not taken into cognition because the data is received online and that is valid. 4. This case has been observed that the respondent no. 1 has not submitted any documents which proves that the colour of vehicle was rectified in registration and invoice book. This is also not proved that the information of rectified documents was granted to applicant. It is also not proved that the applicant was elude from it. This is our misfortune that in this technological age it was took 7 months to simply change the words in registration book. Definitely, this is the inferiority of service that the respondent delayed to bestowed the rectified documents to the applicant for that the forum has provide the reasonable compensation to the applicant for rupees 5000/- as mental agony and rupees 2000/-as litigation expenses from respondent no. 1 and 3. 5. Consequently, the forum has accepted the applicant claim for the above situation and extracting that the respondent no. 1 and 3 are guilty for the inferiority of service and professional malpractice and entitle to receive the compensation from respondent no. 1 and 3. 2] A case between Smt. RadhikaVerma VS Managing Director, P.A.C.L. India Ltd. Delhi, Branch MangerP.A.C.L. Raipur, Authorized officer, P.A.C.L. Raipur passed on 11.05.2015 with case no. 323/2014 State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Raipur. Smt. RadhikaVerma, W/O ShriRikheswarVerma, resident of Mandhar road, vidhannagar, baroda, P.o.Mandharcolony , Raipur. ..….. Applicant VERSUS 1. P.A.C.L. India Ltd., Managing Director, GopaldasBhawan Road, New Delhi 2. Nareshnamdeo, Branch Manager, P.A.C.L., Krishna complex, D.C. square, Raipur 3. Purshottam Bari, Authorized officer, P.A.C.L, Krishna complex, D.C. square, Raipur. …… Respondent

(Complaint Application U/s 12 of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986) QUORUM: SH. R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT SMT. SHEILA THAKKAR Per R.S. Sharma, president

1. This complaint application has been filed by RadhikaVerma under section 12 of the consumer protection Act, 1986 against the respondents, for enforcement of the orders dated 11.05.15 passed by this forum in consumer complaint no. 323 of 28.06.2014and as affirmed by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur. It is pleaded that on 11.05.2015 that the applicant deposited rupees 20400/- in November 2006 under the influence of agent of respondent company. Agent was told that after 7 years the amount will be rupees 45614/-. After 7 years completion when the applicant went to the respondent office to collect the whole money. Then the respondent took the principal investment certificate and gave a receipt on 22. 11. 2013 and stated that after 15 days the applicant would collect the said amount. Due to this statement of respondent ,applicant came several times around respondents office to collect amount ,but till june 2014 they did not get any amount from respondents side , due to this applicant sent an notice to respondent . applicant was mentally disturbed. Therefore the respondent has committed professional malpractice, and failed to serve as he promised. 2. This case has been observed that the respondent has submitted a cheque (No.414968) of IDBI bank of rupees 48163/-in the name of applicant to the forum. Aforesaid, cheque has been received too late. So the applicant claim for compensation of rupees 3000/- for mental agony andrupees 2000/- for litigation expenses from respondent within 1 month. 3]. A case between Smt. KuleshwariBai VS Branch Manager, future generally India Insurance Co. Ltd., Manager, District cooperative central Bank, Raipur passed on 13.03.2015 with case no. 453/2014 State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Raipur Smt.KuleshwariBai, W/olateRajnu Ram, Resident of sursuli, Balod, Raipur …..Applicant VERSUS 1. Branch Manager, Future Generally India Insurance Co. Ltd., branch office Maruti Business Park, G.E.Road, Raipur(C.G.) 2. Manager, District cooperative Central Bank, Infront of District Hospital, G.E. Road,Durg (C.G.) ……Respondent

(Complaint Application U/s 12 of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986) QUORUM: SH. R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT SMT. SHEILA THAKKAR Per R.S. Sharma, president

1. This complaint application has been filed by Smt. KuleshwariBai under section 12 of the consumer protection Act, 1986 against the respondents, for enforcement of the orders dated 11.05.2015 passed by this forum in consumer complaint no. 453 of 22.11.2013 and as affirmed by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur. The applicant claimed against the insurance company for rupees 500000/- .The facts of the case is that the respondent no. 2 has been open a saving account from a farmers group

CONCLUSION At the end i will like to conclude that while working as an intern in this commission i got to learn many things how case got filed how proceedings run in consumer court about the jurisdiction of the state consumer forum in this forum i learnt that cases are mostly of Medical Negligence ,insurance and other cases related for the protection of rights of consumer the forum work for the welfare and basic function is to provide compensation for any wrong done to the consumers.