LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

VINAY KUMAR SINGH (Major General)     14 July 2012

Corruption in ncdrc

 

 

I am writing this to bring out a serious case, which indicates that the judicial forums such as the CIC and the NCDRC have also been afflicted by the disease which pervades all our institutions – corruption. I have already seen 3-4 instances in the CIC, when Intimation of hearings were not sent and dates of hearing were changed at short notice, at the behest of interested parties. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions are not immune from this virus.

I had filed a case in 2003 in the Delhi State Consumer Commission against the Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) for providing me a flat whose covered area was less than what was shown in the documents (1412 sq ft). Using the RTI Act, 2005, I was able to get the sanctioned building plans and other documents from the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), which confirmed that the covered area is just 1269 sq. ft. There was a shortfall of 144 sq. ft. or more than 10%. After this was produced in the State Commission, in a judgment delivered on 20/01/2009, the Commission ordered the AWHO to refund Rs 25,000 for the shortfall, in addition to a penalty of Rs 50,000.

The AWHO did not comply with the order. More than six months after this, it filed an appeal in the National Consumer Commission in October 2009. Since the time limit of 30 days was over, it forged the date. Copies of the order were issued to both parties on 26/3/2009. The figure 3 was altered to look like8, and the date became 26/8/2009. This was confirmed by State Commission in response to an RTI application, and was brought to the notice of the National Commission in my reply. I also reported this fact in writing to the Registrar, NCDRC, who wrote to the State Commission to confirm the date of the order. The State Commission wrote back to the NCDRC, confirming that copies of the order were issued to both parties on 26/3/2009.

            The fact that the appeal of the AWHO was time barred was part of my reply submitted to the NCDRC during the first hearing on 4/1/2010. It was also mentioned by me during the next hearing on 16/3/2010 and the final hearing on29/7/2010. For some reason the order was reserved. After several visits to the National Commission, I got fed up and filed an RTI application on 11/11/2010.Soon after this, I received the order of the National Commission issued on22/11/2010. It set aside the judgment of the State Commission. It made no mention of the forgery committed buy the AWHO.

      On 20/12/2010 I filed a review petition in the NCDRC u/s 22(2) of the Act. Since the appeal of the AWHO was clearly time barred, the order of the State Commission should be considered final, as per Section 24 of the Act. As expected, the review petition was dismissed. I then made an official complaint to the Registrar NCDRC on 15/3/2011 reporting the case of fabricating false evidence and forgery of court records. These offences are punishable by up to 7 years imprisonment according to section 193, 466 and 471 of the IPC. It was clear that the forgery was committed by officers/counsel of the AWHO, in connivance with the staff of the NCDRC, who admitted the appeal. I requested the NCDRC to report the matter to the police and register an FIR. According toSection 195 (b) (i) and (ii) of the Cr.P.C.,, courts can take cognizance of anoffence u/s 193 and 471 of the IPC only based on a complaint in writing of the court in relation to which the offence was committed.

 Receiving no response from the NCDRC, I filed an RTI application on 2/5/2011 followed by a first appeal on 6/6/2011. The replies given by the NCDRC were evasive. I then filed a 2nd Appeal before the CIC on 22/7/2011. The case was heard by Shri Vijay Sharma. Information Commissioner on 25/5/2001. A copy of the order of the same date in case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001980/VS/00192 is attached. Extracts are given below:-

The response of the NCDRC was obfuscated. This was brought out by the appellant in the hearing, taking into account that the date of an order was tampered with by overwriting to circumvent the period of the limitation, which was a serious matter that should have triggered the NCDRC into action. It was stated by the appellant that the fabricated order was used to avoid the time bar, but the NCDRC did not file a forgery case with the police against those responsible, in this case, the Army Welfare Housing Organisation. 

The NCDRC has been ordered to provide the complete information including certified copies of file notings within 30 days. I am not sure if they will comply. Like most government agencies, they will probably appeal the order in the High Court.  I have filed a separate complaint with the Police. They have not registered an FIR, probably for the reasons already mentioned. After RTI applications and first appeals have failed do elicit any response, I have filed a 2nd appeal with the CIC, which is yet to be heard. 

Incidentally, the lawyer representing the AWHO in the NCDRC was there in the State Commission also, where the case took 6 years to be decided. I learned that the lawyer was making sure that my case was always listed last. As a result, it was never heard, and was always adjourned. It was only after 3-4 years that I discovered this, and wrote a letter to the Registrar, who advised me to mention it before the Judge, which I did. Justice JD Kapoor promised to decide it at the next hearing, which he did.

Kindly advise on what are the avenues open to me now. I should have appealed to the Supreme Court against the order of the NCDRC, but I decided against it. I have too many cases already to contend with. If nothing works, I intend filing a complaint with the Delhi Bar Council against the lawyer, for unethical practices. I do not understand why they need 55 copies of the complaint!

 



Learning

 6 Replies

Anish Thakur 7018812737 (advocate)     14 July 2012

forward above detail with application to president of india,

defence minister

law minister

and also to the all media house.

i am surprised to see such a big scam in such level.sad to know all this.

1 Like

VINAY KUMAR SINGH (Major General)     15 July 2012

Writing to the President, PM etc will achieve nothing. During the last five years, I have not only addressed several letters to all of them but also met the CVC, Law Minsiter, Director CBI and several others.

 In 2007, I wrote a book pointing out several cases of corruption in RAW. Angered by this, the concerned officers in RAW prevailed on the CBI to file an FIR and charge sheet against me for violating the OSA. The name of the book is INDIA'S EXTERNAL INTELLIGENCNE - SECRETS OF THE RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS WING. The case is now in the court of the CMM, Delhi. Prashant Bhushan has filed a case in the High Court to quash the proceedings. The hearings are still on. 

There are similar scams in the CIC, in which notice of hearings was deliberately not sent, documents were forged and so on. Some of them I have taken up in the HIgh Court also

Ajit Singh Cheema (practising Advocate)     15 July 2012

Kudos for the fight being given. Instead of filing a complaint with Registrar of NCDRC , you should have filed an application before NCDRC under section 340 of Cr.P.C. for necessary action.Now the only hope may be an appeal before Supereme Court under section 341of Cr.P.C.I hope the better sense will prevail.Though you have lost a golden opportunity of filing an appeal against the orders of NCDRC in which the Criminal angle could also have been pursued . In my view filing complaint with the Delhi Bar Council against the lawyer will not serve any useful purpose and shall rather be like beating about the bush.

VINOD VERMA (C E O)     18 October 2012

I am also a victim of the corrupt consumer forums, which are hand in glove with the builders. I filed a case in SCDRC against a builder and won the same partially, deliberately the interest and compensation were drastically reduced forcing me to go for an appeal before the NCDRC for enhancements. Counter appeal was filed by the builder and finally conditional stay was granted to builder and was asked to refund my principal amount to SCDRC. The same was not released to me. after this I filed an application for release of the principal amount which again NCDRC allowed but asking me for bank guarantee. I would like to know the best course, how I can chellange the order of NCDRC, either I can file review application or I need to seek directions from the Superme Court, what are time limits? Can I do the both together. Anyone, can please help.

VINOD VERMA (C E O)     19 October 2012

Our Govt. is wasting the taxpayers money.  The Ministry of Consumer Affairs  is giving regular advertisements in Live Media, Newspapers saying loudly" Jago Grahak Jago"... for consumers to file complaints  against deffective goods and services, but what are the end results. The Consumer protection Act. 1985 made it mandatory that cases would be decided in 3months, but see on 3rd Aug. 2012, Sh. Ashok Bhan, President NCDRC telling the complainant/appellant that he has pendency since 1998, so how can he prepone any case of 2011. So better why wake up the consumer, when you can not deliver justice in 14 years (Itne saalon main toh Bhagwan Ram bhi Vanvas se laut aaye the)

gaurav shukla   14 July 2024

Every Builder has setting by providing gift to President and members, Although the prefix of state consumer forum is Consumer but these court make delay in favour of Builders to pay back gifted amount,After so many years the force consumer for settlement under builder conditions.This is happening in every state of India, To see the advertisement of JAGO GRAHAK JAGO ,I filed a plea at District forum Ghaziabad in 2016 and after 2 years of presiding a judgement of non applicability due to amount was above the court value.I refiled my case in Delhi State forum in 2018 but wasting my money to lawer and court presiding till of the day.

Can any regulatory authority or anti-corruption beuro are made in our vigilance system Please guide.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register