MARGAO
In a significant order which deter defaulting builders from disregarding orders passed by the Consumer Courts and at the same time restore the faith of the litigating consumers in the Judicial system, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Goa has remanded a city-based builder to judicial custody till the conclusion of the proceedings before it.
The builder was arrested by the police and produced before the Commission to cancel the proclamation issued against him and also applied for bail. The bail application was rejected by a Bench comprising of President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sanjay M Chodankar and Member Jayson Rodrigues.
Representing the complainant before the consumer court, Adv Pritam Morais along with Adv Apurva Naik, had opposed the bail application filed by the city-based builder on the ground that if the litigant does not come to the court with clean hands, such litigant is not entitled to be heard and such a person is also not entitled to any relief from any judicial forum. They had also argued that it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.
In its order, the consumer court observed that the accused is in the habit of deliberately remaining absent on the date of hearing so that the matter is adjourned and the complainant is put to inconvenience and financial loss. The court further observed that the Consumer Protection Act aims to safeguard consumer’s rights and interest by providing mechanisms for speedy redressal of grievances, promoting consumer awareness and preventing unfair trade practices, ultimately creating a fairer marketplace. The court held that the accused, who is gone all out to defeat the very purpose of the Consumer Protection Act is not entitled for reliefs.
The Court also observed that considering that the conduct of the accused does not appear to be fair to the Commission, the Commission was of the considered opinion that the accused is making mockery of the legal process by not complying with the order under execution and by delaying the conclusion of the proceedings filed before it by continuously remaining absent.
