news details |
|
|
| Consumer Protection Commission dismisses appeal by Telecom DM | | ‘Records dismay, disgust for remaining it pending for 12 years’ | | Early Times Reporter
Jammu | Nov 25
Dismissing the appeal by the Telecom District Manager, Jammu, against the judgment of Divisional Consumer Protection Forum Jammu, the Jammu and Kashmir State Consumers Protection Commission headed by Mr. Justice G D Sharma and Mr. Khalid Hussain as Member, has directed the appellants to pay Rs,5,000 as cost of within a period of one month from the date of judgment.
The Commission, while upholding the judgment of the Divisional Consumer Protection Forum Jammu, in an appeal filed by Subash Chander of M/s Gupta and Co New Fruit Market opposite Jewel Chowk Jammu in a case relating to inflated billing of his telephone, observed that in the final analysis ‘we have no hesitation in holding that appellants had failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay in filling the appeal which is time barred and not maintainable. Not only that, the appeal is merit less on factual and legal aspects as a result the appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000 to be paid by the appellants within a period of one month from today’, the Commission ordered.
The Commission uphold the order dated December 5,1994 of the Forum and while parting with the record of the case recorded its ‘disgust and dismay’ that the appeal has remained pending in the Commission for a period longer than 12 years when the learned Forum below was able to decide it within six months. It is rightly said that ‘delayed justice is denied justice’, and this inordinate delay can’t be solely attributed to the Commission but all the players connected with its functions are jointly responsible, the Commission remarked. However, it maintained that one of the main factor for the delay is that the Commission remained non functional for pretty long because of lack of Quorum and the Act demands speedy and cheap justice being a socialistic piece of legislation and everybody who is connected with its administration should act to achieve the desired results.
The Commission further said that ‘such types of old cases are black spots and anti-thesis to the intention of the Act’.
Advocate Ravinder Gupta appeared for the appellants while Advocate K K Jandial appeared for the respondent. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
