In a recent decision (18-1-14), the Mysore District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dismissed a contempt of court case filed against Mysore Grahakara Parishat. The case was filed by Dr. S.P. Thirumala Rao. The judgment is available here. It is of interest that the case was filed by the leader of one consumer organization against another consumer organization.
Background
In a decision given on 8-3-12, Mysore District Consumer Forum (MDCF) imposed a penalty of Rs. 6000 on DDPI, Mysore for deficient service. The complainant, a resident of Mysore, had filed an application with the DDPI under the Right to Information Act, 2005 asking for some information. But the DDPI did not answer within the time limit fixed by the Act. The complainant then filed a case against the DDPI before the MDCF and argued that since she had paid the application fee of Rs. 10, she was a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and the non-supply of information by the DDPI constituted deficiency of service. The Forum agreed with the complainant and imposed a penalty on the DDPI.
MGP published an article in its monthly newsletter"Grahaka Patrike" about this decision. The article said that the decision was not in consonance with the latest order of the National Consumer Commission. MDCF had relied on a decision of the National Consumer Commission given on 28-5-09 which said that failure of public authorities to provide information under the Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2000 constitutes deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act. But as the article in "Grahaka Patrike" pointed out, in a case decided later (on 14-9-10), the National Commission has ruled that a person who has filed a petition under the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot be termed to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Since the case before the MDCF was with reference to RIA 2005 and not KRIA 2000 (which had been repealed), the MDCF should have followed this latter decision of the National Commission and not its earlier decision.
But the article is "Grahaka Patrike" had also pointed out that the second decision of the National Commission was not available either in journals reporting on consumer cases or on the website of the National Commission and so the DCF was probably not aware of the second decision of the National Commission.
Dr. S.P. Thirumala Rao, filed a complaint before the Mysore DCF against the President of MGP, the author, the publisher of "Grahaka Patrike" and the printer alleging that in the article MGP was denigrating MDCF, putting it to ridicule and scandalizing it in the guise of supporting consumer cause. He alleged that MGP which is supposed to protect the interest of the consumer has made attempts to obstruct justice by publishing the article. He also alleged that MGP was publishing scurrilous articles in local papers which are in no way helpful to aggrieved consumers. The criminal contempt case of Dr. Rao against MGP was filed under Sec. 13(5) of the Consumer Protection Act read with Sec. 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Noted advocates, M.Y.Kumar and S.N. Prakash appeared for MGP.
The judgment
After conducting hearings on the matter, MDCF passed an order on 18-1-14 dismissing Dr. Rao's complaint. It said that the article published by MGP pointed out that the order of the National Commission on RTI applications on 14-9-10 overturns its earlier decision given on 28-5-09. This can not be construed as a scurrilous article. MDCF said that the media have a right to make such analysis and criticism. It also said that the National Commission and the Supreme Court have overturned their earlier judgments in several instances. Lower courts, when they are not aware of the later judgments, have passed orders based on the earlier judgments which have been overturned.
In consequence, MDCF said that no action can be taken against MGP under Sec. 13(5) of the Consumer Protection Act read with Sec. 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code and dismissed Dr. Rao's complaint.
Some important issues not addressed by the judgment
MDCF limited the scope of its order to whether action can be taken against MGP and did not express an opinion on some important issues such as:
1. Can a contempt of court complaint be filed before a consumer court?
Sec. 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act limits the complaints filed before consumer courts to those related to unfair trade practice, defect in goods, deficiency in service, charging excessive price or sale of dangerous goods or services. There seems to be no provision for filing a complaint regarding (even genuine) contempt of court. Such a provision should be there, but as things stand right now, it appears that consumer courts can not take up contempt cases. Dr. Thirumala Rao argued that since consumer courts have the trappings of an ordinary court, articles denigrating their honour would attract the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. But this argument can be criticized on three counts. Firstly, as pointed above, the Consumer Protection Act permits only certain types of cases to be filed before the consumer courts and contempt of court cases are not in this list. Secondly, even ordinary courts can not take up contempt of court cases. A plain reading of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 indicates that only High Courts (and the Supreme Court) can take up such cases. Our internet search has revealed that when lower courts were defamed, these courts did not take action directly on the culprit, but wrote to the High Court requesting initiation of contempt proceedings. Thirdly, according to Sec. 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, High Courts can take cognizance of criminal contempt only with reference to subordinate courts. According to a judgment of the Supreme Court given on 6-8-12, consumer courts are not subordinate to the High Court. They have their own hierarchy (ending at the Supreme Court) with a statutory appeal process and High Courts even with their writ jurisdiction can not interfere in this process.
2. What is the scope of Sec. 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code?
It is clear that Sec. 13(5) of the Consumer Protection Act gives consumer courts the power of a civil court for the purposes of Sec. 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. But Sec. 195 of CrPC refers only to prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants (such as obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions, omission to assist public servant when bound by law to give assistance, etc.), for offences against public justice (such as harbouring offenders, impersonation, etc.) or for offences relating to documents given in evidence (such as giving false evidence, causing disappearance of evidence, etc.) and for no other offences. In the case against MGP, there were no allegations concerning any of these issues. It appears that in this situation, a complaint asking for action to be taken under Sec. 13(5) of the Consumer Protection Act read with Sec. 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code has no foundation at all.
3. Should the complaint have been dismissed as frivolous and vexatious?
In light of Issues 1 and 2 above and in light of the fact that the complainant is well-versed in consumer law and is a former member of MDCF, there was a good case for dismissing the complaint as frivolous and vexatious.
R Chandra Prakash, MGP