Complaint without a cause

Pushpa Girimaji

I have had a dispute with a manufacturer of a water purifier for some time. As he did not resolve my complaint, I decided to lodge a complaint before the consumer court and sent him a notice. Now the legal advisor of the manufacturer called me up last week and warned me that my complaint would be treated as ‘false and frivolous’ by the consumer court and I would be asked to pay a penalty to the manufacturer. My question is: Is there such a provision in the consumer protection law? And what kind of penalty will they impose?

Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, under the head ‘Dismissal of frivolous or vexatious complaints’, says: “Where a complaint instituted before the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission is found to be frivolous or vexatious, it shall, for reasons to be recorded in writing, dismiss the complaint and make an order that the complainant shall pay to the opposite party such cost, not exceeding ten thousand rupees, as may be specified in the order.”

However, those filing genuine cases need not fear it. In fact, it has been used very rarely by the consumer courts. It is obvious that the legal advisor of the company is trying to dissuade you from filing the complaint. In other words, the company is worried about your taking the issue to the consumer court. So you don’t have to bother about the provision. My only advise is that you write your complaint clearly, give proper evidence in the form of receipts, and where necessary, the opinion of experts. In short, your case should be based on facts and evidence to back those facts. Similarly, there should be logic for the quantum of compensation being sought by you. There is no need to underestimate the loss or suffering caused, but at the same time, gross overestimation may not go well with the consumer courts.

If any complaint has been dismissed under Section 26 recently, I would like to know about it?

I can quote an appeal that was dismissed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission through its order of October 5, 2018, as being frivolous and vexatious, wasting the time and resources of the Commission.

The Commission commented that in such cases it was necessary to give a stern warning to the consumer through a monetary deterrent. However, the consumer was a well-read man, with a doctorate and needs to be counselled and advised rather than censured for his “misplaced and irrational approach to consumer justice”. The Commission concluded that in the totality of the case, it was just, apt and reasonable that a token amount of Rs 500 be deposited by him in the Consumer Legal Aid account of the Commission.

The consumer in this case bought a postpaid internet plan for Rs 5,000 on May 8, 2013. However, on May 10, the service was suddenly disconnected without any intimation to him. He was also not told at the time of sale that all transactions are final and no refund would be made. Saying that the sudden disconnection caused him immense loss and mental harassment as the connection was neither restored nor was he given back his money, he sought a compensation of Rs 99,95,500.

The company’s argument was that on verification of his address, it was found that the complainant was not staying at the given address and so they did not activate the connection.

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which first heard the complaint, dismissed it saying that the consumer was making a disproportionate claim just to bring the case within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. Thus the case was filed with malafide intention just to defeat the hierarchy of the Forum (He should have filed his complaint before the District Consumer Forum, whose pecuniary jurisdiction is up to Rs 20 lakhs), the Commission said. Observing that consumer forums cannot be used to extort money for unjust enrichment, the Commission directed the complainant to pay Rs 10,000 to the Legal Aid Cell of the Commission. This was upheld by the National Commission.

So whenever one computes the damages, it has to have a strong basis and should be well-reasoned. (Dr Uttamkumar Samanta Vs Vodafone East Ltd and four others. FA No 847 of 2017)