A.Y. PRABHAKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ appeal has been filed against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 9-9-1991 in W.P. No. 12692 of 1991, since reported in 1995 Writ LR 197, Prabhakar Vs. Union of India , where under the learned single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition filed seeking for the issue of a writ of declaration and certiorari or any other, appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of a writ.

(2.) The relevant facts necessary for appreciating the grievance of the appellant are as follows : Third respondent herein has filed a complaint under Sec. 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for compensation on account of the death of their son, Nagarajan, in the lift accident on 25-8-1988. It is unnecessary for us to deal with the circumstances under which the accident occurred or the legality or the propriety of the claim made by the complainants, since we are not concerned with any of those questions, except the fact that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras, by its judgment dated 25-4-1991 in O.P. No. 11 of 1991 awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000.00 in favour of the complainants-third respondent herein, who are the parents of the deceased Nagarajan, After awarding the said amount, at paragraph 17 of the judgment on point No. 7, the said Commission also ordered as follows :

(3.) The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition repelling the challenge made to Sec. 13(3) and Sec. 27 of the Act. The challenge made to Sec. 13(3) was on the ground that the principles of that rai justice are embodied in the rules recognised by the Court, otherwise called "rule of law" and that the rule of law being the basis of the concept of a judicial system, Art. 14 of the Constitution should govern the proceedings before the Commission or Forum and Sec. 13(3) of the Act insofar as it exempts or excludes the Stale Forum or Commission from observing the principles of natural justice, should be held lobe ultra vires the basic principles of rule of lav. So far as the challenge made to Sec. 27 of the Act is concerned, the plea on behalf of the appellant was that there are no sufficient guidelines as to the circumstances under which Sec. 27 of the Act with drastic powers could be invoked and in the absence of such guidelines the Sec. is violative of Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, liable to be struck down and as a further consequence thereof, the impugned order of the State Commission under Sec. 27 of the Act, has to be set aside Aggrieved, the above writ appeal has been filed