Plea against appointment of law officers dismissed

Chandigarh, September 19
The Punjab and Haryana High Court today dismissed a petition alleging the appointment of law officers in Punjab for “furthering the prospects of Badals in the forthcoming Vidhan Sabha elections.
In its petition placed before the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice MM Kumar and Justice Gurdev Singh, Lawyers for Humanity had asserted: “The law officers were being appointed only with a view to win the elections and the state exchequer was being depleted to further the prospects of Badals.”
In the petition against the State of Punjab, Punjab Advocate-General, the Director in the Department of Employment Generation and 126 law officers, the petitioners had sought the quashing of their appointment on the ground of being made in an arbitrary manner.
Alleging the violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the petitioners had also sought directions to stay the renewal of contract for 2011-12 and to launch prosecution “against those responsible for circumventing the procedure of appointment in offices as enshrined under the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notice of Vacancies) Act-1959.

Consumer Courts Awareness

Reliance told to pay Rs 16,800 vehicle damage claim
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, September 19
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed Reliance General Insurance Company to indemnify the loss on non-standard basis and pay Rs 16,800 along with 15 per cent interest to a Sector-30 resident towards the payment for the repair of his vehicle.
The district forum comprising its president PD Goel, and members Rajinder Singh Gill and Madanjit Kaur Sahota has also directed the opposite party to pay Rs 7,000 as costs of litigation.
Complainant Naresh Chaudhary had claimed that he had insured his Tata Indigo car with Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd as a passenger-carrying vehicle but due to family problems, he could not use the same for commercial purpose and got it insured as a private vehicle.
Later, he requested the opposite party to make necessary correction in the policy to which the insurance company replied that before correction, the vehicle needed to be inspected. Also Rs 200 were demanded as inspection charges.
The company later informed him that necessary formalities had been completed and he would receive the corrected policy. However, the policyholder failed to receive the corrected policy till the filing of the complaint.
He averred that his vehicle met with an accident on April 16, 2010 and consequently informed the company.
He got it repaired by spending Rs 28,480 and submitted the relevant documents to the company. He alleged that the company repudiated his claim on the ground that the policy was issued for a passenger-carrying vehicle, whereas the vehicle was registered as a private vehicle.
The counsel for the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. argued that the FIR was lodged on April 19, 2010 four days after the accident, while the company was informed of the same after 13 days of the accident.
It was pleaded that the surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs 22,400. He further argued that the vehicle was insured as a passenger-carrying vehicle but the complainant got the vehicle registered as a private one and they were unable to process the claim because the complainant was not having any insurable interest in the vehicle.
The counsel further pleaded that there had been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

UT yet to set up Consumer Protection Council

Chandigarh, September 19
Even though Chandigarh is leading the country on the judicial front of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), with the highest average percentage disposal rate of 97 per cent yet on the administrative side, the city has failed to establish any Consumer Protection Council (CPC) even after 25 years of the enactment of the CPA in 1986.
Under Sections 6 to 8 in Chapter II of the CPA the setting up of the CPC is mandatory which provides for the establishment of the council at the Central and state levels for the avowed purpose of promoting and protecting the rights of the consumers.
Initially, the provisions were not compulsory, but the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act of 2002 made the creation of councils mandatory by incorporating Section 8A, which states that the state government (UT administration) shall establish for every district by notification, a council to be known as the District Consumer Protection Council (DCPC) with effect from such date as it may specify in such notification.
The DCPC would consist of members such as the Collector of the district who would be the chairman and such number of other official and non-official members representing such interests as may be prescribed by the state government.
The council would meet as and when necessary but not less than two meeting to be held every year and the members would meet at such a time and place within the district as the chairman may think fit and would observe such procedures in regard to the transaction of its business as may be prescribed.
Chandigarh, Consumer Courts Bar Association president Pankaj Chandgothia, said, "The amendment was made effective from March 15, 2003 (World Consumer Day), but even after more than 8 years of the amendment, the UT administration continues to ignore the legislative intent adversely affecting the consumer protection movement in this area”.
Recently, in a DO letter to the departments concerned, GN Sreekumaran, joint secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, New Delhi, has stressed upon the need for establishing the district and state councils, at the earliest.
Chandgothia further alleged that in the absence of these statutory councils, private consumer protection associations were mushrooming, some of which were exploiting the consumers on the pretext of guidance.