Complaints filed as far back as 1992 pending at state consumer commission, discovers Charul Shah
Complaints filed as far back as 1992 pending at state consumer commission, discovers Charul Shah
Case: Parvati Farm v/s CN Poultry Farms
Filed in: 1998 with the state consumer commissionu00a0
Details: Parvati, a poultry farm establishment, filed a case against CN Poultry Farms in 1998, alleging that the latter had supplied them defective equipment, earlier in the year.
Update: "It was only in January 2008 that the final hearing took place. The verdict is awaited," said Shirish Deshpande, advocate for Parvati farms and vice-chairman, Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, a registered voluntary consumer organisation.
ADVERTISEMENT
Case: Savithri Jaiwansi v/s Dr Gurmani Kundi
Filed in: 1992 before the state commission
Details: Savithri Jaiwansi alleged that her husband
Dr Chandrabhan Jaiwansi died on February 20, 1992 due to alleged negligence on part of Dr Gurmani Kundi and the Vikas Nursing Home, Ulhasnagar. Savithri alleged that her husband was taken to the operation theatre for a medical check up, and given an injection, after which, he fell down from the table and sustained head injuries, which caused his death at the nursing home.
Update: "The state commission has disposed off the case and given a clear chit to the doctors. However,
Mrs Jaiwansi approached the national commission, which sent the case back to the state commission for a review," said Shirish Deshpande, who is assisting the court in disposing the petition. The case comes up for hearing on March 18.
Case: A T Hasrajani v/s Dr Lal Gajaria and directors of Monochem Industries
Filed in: November, 1997 in the state commission forum.
Details: Hasrajani had proposed to start a shop factory named Hasraj Shop Pvt Ltd, and had appointed Monochem and Dr Gajaria as business consultants for strategy and policy-making. After the project was not granted necessary government permissions, Hasrajani filed a case against Dr Gajaria and directors of Monochem, stating that it was their responsibility to obtain the government's approval.
Update: After Dr Gajaria died in June 2000, Hasrajani made Gajaria's nominees liable. A few months later, Hasrajani also passed away.
"Now that both parties are dead, it is for the court to expedite matters. While consumer courts are required to deliver judgment in any case within 90 days, some cases, have unfortunately, dragged on for years," said Uday Wavikar, an advocate who appeared for Dr Gajaria.
Delay in numbersu00a0u00a0
State commission
> 44,785: Cases filed till 2008
> 17,588: Cases awaiting judgment
> 6,171: Cases awaiting disposal for over five years
District consumer forum
> 2,05,326: Cases filed till 2008
> 1,91,519: Cases that had been disposed off till November 2008
> 67,149: Cases disposed off within the stipulated time frame of 90 days
Why the delay?
Cases get delayed because advocates keep seeking adjournments, and consumer courts are understaffed. The lack of proper infrastructure is also to be blamed.
-u00a0B B Vagyani
President, State Consumer Redressal Commission
Only advocates shouldn't be blamed for the delays. The Bar Association of Consumer forums has filed a case with the State Human Rights Commission and the HC against the government for not providing proper infrastructure to consumer courts.
-u00a0Anand Patwardhan
Consumer lawyer and honorary treasurer of Bar Association of the Consumer Courts
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
