Police laxity is a term that most would be familiar with. But "deficiency in service"
on part of the police when it comes to maintaining law and order may also enter
the common lexicon soon.
When Dadumajra Colony residents Lal Bahadur and his son Rikhi Ram complained in
the UT consumer forum against an insurance company and Chandigarh Police under Section
12 of Consumer Protection Act, they set a precedent that could open new doors of
litigation against cops. Their motorcycle was stolen from Sector 34 on March 29,
2008. The father-son duo had approached the insurance company, which repudiated
their claim, following which they complained against it and cops in the forum.
Though the forum could have dismissed the complaint against the cops terming it
"in limine" (through which evidence or one of the parties can be excluded from
legal proceedings), it issued a notice to the police seeking their reply. Also,
in his reply, SHO of Sector-34 police station did not plead that the complaint was
not maintainable and admitted that the vehicle had been stolen. The reply went,
"Despite best efforts of police, the motorcycle could not be traced. In these
circumstances, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves
dismissal."
On Monday, the forum, headed by its president Lakshman Sharma, said, "The complainants
have failed to make any case of deficiency in service against UT police and complaint
against (them) stands dismissed."
Deciding the case on merit, the forum asked the insurance company to pay Rs 32,741
as claim amount along with Rs 15,000 as compensation for harassment. Advocate Deepak
Aggarwal, who represented the father-son duo, said, "People can file cases against
police force as all public authorities come under the ambit of CP Act. The tax paid
by consumers is treated as a consideration."
"No functionary, according to Supreme Court, exercising statutory powers, can
claim immunity except to the extent protected by the statute itself. Public authorities
acting in violation of statutory provisions are accountable for their behaviour
before authorities like commissions or courts entrusted with responsibility of maintaining
the rule of law," added Aggarwal while citing an apex court judgment.
Member of the forum, Siddheshwar Sharma said, "Services provided by department
of posts, passport offices, universities, municipal corporations and even administration
fall under the ambit of CP Act."
Sources said there were other similar complaints in the pipeline as well. Jagroop
Singh Mahal, president of another consumer forum, said, "Whenever there is non-performance
of duty by a public authority, including police, people complain under CP Act."
UT SP Madhur Verma said, "Our job is to detect and prevent crime. We don"t charge
fees to do that. However, it all depends on the court if it wants to consider our
duties as a service under consumer laws
