Ranjit Singh vs J&K State Consumer Dispute ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 799 j&K

                                                                     Sr. No. 208
        HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                        AT JAMMU
CJ Court

Case: OWP No. 334 of 2014


Ranjit Singh                                          ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)

                                   Through: Sh. Jagpaul Singh, Advocate.

                           v/s
J&K State Consumer Dispute Redressal                              .... Respondent(s)
Commission Jammu and another

                                   Through: Sh. Baldev Singh, Advocate for
                                            respondent no.2


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE


                                        ORDER

01. Heard Sh. Jagpaul Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Sh. Baldev Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2.

02. The judgment and orders dated 30.04.2013 and 10.01.2014 passed by the

District Consumer Forum Jammu (the Forum) and State Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission at Jammu ( the State Commission) are under challenge

in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

03. The Forum by the said order has allowed the Insurance Company to

amend its objections so as to permit it to take an additional ground in defence

and the said order has been upheld by the State Commission.

04. The vehicle -Maruti Van of the petitioner was insured with the

Insurance Company which met with an accident and was totally damaged. The

Insurance Company refused the claim of the petitioner on the sole ground of

overloading. Accordingly, a complaint was preferred before the Forum wherein

objections were filed by the Insurance Company. The parties even exchanged

affidavits and adduced evidence. At the stage of hearing, the Insurance

Company moved an application for amending the objections so as to add an

additional ground of defence that the vehicle was being used for commercial

purposes and, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any claim.

05. The said application to amend the objections has been allowed by the

authorities below.

06. The argument of Sh. Jagpaul Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is

that the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act 1987, (the Consumer

Protection Act) is a self contained Code and since the provisions of Code of

Civil Procedure are applicable only to a limited extent and there is no specific

provision to permit amendment in the pleadings, the authorities have

manifestly erred in exercising jurisdiction to allow amendment in the

objections.

07. Sh. Baldev Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance

Company on the other hand contends that the authorities below have rightly

allowed Insurance Company to take additional ground of defence for the

advancement of justice. There is no illegality in the orders so passed.

08. In short, in the facts and circumstance of the case and the respective

submissions of the parties, the controversy is very limited to the effect whether

in the absence of any specific provision under the Consumer Protection Act,

the Forum was justified in allowing the Insurance Company to amend its

objections so as to add an additional ground of defence.

09. Accepting that Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) as a whole is not

applicable to the proceedings before the District Consumer Forum and that no

provision under the Consumer Protection Act provides for amending the

pleadings or applying the provisions of Order VI Rule 17, we have to examine

if such amendment could have been permitted in exercise of inherent power so

as to do justice between the parties.

10. In 'Associated Cement Companies Limited v. P. N. Sharma and

another' AIR 1965 SC 1595, it has been laid down that the Tribunals in India

exercise the same powers as that of the Courts and, accordingly, they can

exercise inherent jurisdiction.

11. In 'Mst. Dhani Devi V. Sant Bihari Sharma and others' AIR 1970 SC

759, it was held that in the absence of any Statute or Statutory rule, the

Regional Transport Authority may devise any reasonable procedure for dealing

with the peculiar situation and it is vested with the complete discretion in

allowing or refusing the substitution even if there is no provision under the

procedural law applicable to such authority. It, therefore, has the power to

substitute a person succeeding the ownership or the possession of the vehicle.

It further laid down that all powers which are not specifically denied by the

Statute should be deemed to be conferred upon the Tribunal so that it may

effectively exercise its judicial function.

12. The Supreme Court in the case of 'New India Assurance Company

Limited v. R. Srinivsan', AIR 2000 SC 941, clearly laid down that every court

or judicial authority which has a duty to decide a lis between two parties

inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in default and to restore it on

good grounds shown for non-appearance.

13. The aforesaid legal principle that all Courts and Tribunals have inherent

jurisdiction to evolve such procedure as may be suitable in the peculiar facts

and circumstances for doing effective justice, was laid down by the Supreme

Court far back in the year 1962 in case of 'Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai

Bahadur Raja Seth Hiralal', AIR 1962 Supreme Court 527, wherein it was

observed as under:-

" The Section itself says that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice. In the face of such a clear statement, it is not possible to hold that the provisions of the Code control the inherent power by limiting it or otherwise affecting it. The inherent power has not been conferred upon the Court; it is a power inherent in the Court by virtue of its duty to do justice between, the parties before it."

14. In view of the above decision, it is as clear as crystal that every Court or

Tribunal is possessed of inherent power by virtue of its duty to do justice

between the parties. Once the Court or Tribunal or a quasi judicial authority is

so vested with the inherent power, it is but natural that it can devise procedures

suited to the peculiar circumstances for doing effective justice provided such

procedure is not specifically prohibited by the any Statute or Rule.

15. We have not been shown that any Statutory provision or Rule which

prohibits the authorities, i.e., the District Consumer Forum or the State

Commission from exercising the power to consider an application for

amendment and to allow it.

16. Sh. Jagpaul Singh at this stage submitted that the amendment to the

objections could not have been allowed at the stage of the hearing. We are

afraid that no law prohibits permitting amendment of the pleadings at such a

stage inasmuch as even under the Order VI Rule 17 CPC, pleadings can be

amended at any stage of the suit which includes the appeal despite the fact that

ordinarily amendments are not permitted after the commencement of hearing.

This actually depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

17. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as the petitioner has invoked

our extra ordinary jurisdiction, we do not deem it fit and proper to exercise our

discretionary jurisdiction when the orders impugned are not likely to cause

prejudice or injustice to any of the parties as the petitioner would be having full

opportunity to rebut the additional ground.

18. The writ petition as such lacks merit and is dismissed.

                         (PUNEET GUPTA)                        (PANKAJ MITHAL)
                                 JUDGE                          CHIEF JUSTICE
Jammu
03.08.2021
Sunita

                            Whether the order is speaking?      Yes
                            Whether the order is reportable?    Yes