Advice for return of mobile accessories to mobile company
6 years ago
Sir, consumer forum was order to mobile company for pay the mobile cost Rs. 7000 with harrassment money of rs. 2000 to me (customer).
Consumer forum this order passed after about 3 years from date of mobile purchase.
Now mobile company is requiring mobile accessories from us. But mobile accessories lost by me. Please guide me. If any Judgement passed by court regarding this case please provide us.
Thanking you.
Deepak Yashwantrao Bade
Responded 5 years ago
A.dear client There is no need to give mobile accessories. File executive of the order
Helpful
Helpful
Share
Rajender Prasad
Responded 5 years ago
A.you have nt mentioned the full facts of the case. For details, contact some advocate through vidhikarya.com
Helpful
Helpful
Share
GANESH SHARMA
Responded 5 years ago
A.There is no need to give mobile accessories. File executive of the order
Helpful
Helpful
Share
A.YOU NEED NOT TO GIVE ANY ACCESSORIES. GET THE JUDGMENT REVIEWED IF ANY OBSERVATION WAS MADE. The respondent can be arrested if amount not paid. Judgment.
Madras High Court Radhika Purushothaman And Anr. vs Kala Manivannan And Anr. on 21 April, 1999 Equivalent citations: 1999 97 CompCas 782 Mad Author: A B Khadiri Bench: B A Khadiri JUDGMENT Akbar Basha Khadiri, J. 1. The petitioners invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to quash the proceedings in E.P. No. 17 of 1998 in O.P. No. 320 of 1996 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (South), Madras. 2. This petition has arisen in this way : The first respondent filed O. P. No, 320 of 1996, on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (South), Madras, against the petitioners herein, for refund of certain sum of money, The redressal forum passed orders on December 13, 1996, whereunder the petitioners were directed to refund a sum of Rs. 14,280 to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 by way of compensation with cost Rs. 500. The petitioners did not make any payment and therefore, the complainant instituted execution proceedings in E. P. No. 17 of 1998. In that E.P., the Consumer Redressal Forum passed orders sentencing the first petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Now, the petitioners have come forward with the instant petition to quash the proceedings. The only contention of the petitioners is that the first petitioner is a woman and as per the provisions of Section 56 of the Civil Procedure Code, a woman is not liable to be arrested in execution of a money decree. 3. Heard both the counsel. Section 56 of the Civil Procedure Code, recites as under : "56. Prohibition of arrest or detention of women in execution of decree for money.--Notwithstanding anything in this part, court shall not order the arrest or detention in the civil prison of a woman in execution of a decree for the payment of money." 4. Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, recites as under : "25. Enforcement of orders by the forum, the State Commission or the National Commission.--Every order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission may be enforced by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may he, in the same manner as if it were a decree or order made by a court in a suit pending therein and it shall be lawful for the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission to send, in the event of its inability to execute it such order to the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction : (a) in the case of an order against a company, the registered office of the company is situated, or Radhika Purushothaman And Anr. vs Kala Manivannan And Anr. on 21 April, 1999 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1028618/ 1 (b) in the case of an order against any other person, the place where the person concerned voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, is situated, and thereupon, the court to which the order is so sent, shall execute the order as if it were a decree or order sent to it for execution." 5. Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, recites as under : "27. Penalties.--Where a trade or a person against whom a complaint is made or the complainant fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, such trader or person or complainant shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both : Provided that the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, may, if it is satisfied that the circumstances of any case so require, impose a sentence offen prisonment or fine, or both, for a term less than the minimum term and the amount less than the minimum amount, specified in this section." 6. It is needless to point out that the Consumer Redressal Forum has passed a money decree and that decree was sought to be executed in E. P. No. 17 of 1998. But the Consumer Redressal Forum has imposed a sentence of imprisonment for one month on the first petitioner under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited several authorities before me to lay stress that the proceedings shall be quashed. But the decisions do not apply to the facts of the instant case. In Managing Director, Nadippisai Pulavar K.R. Ramaswamy Sugar Mills v. Fareed Bawa , my learned brother P. Sathasivam J. has held that no compensation can be awarded where loss has not been proved. This is a factor touching the merits of the matter. An ex parte decree has been passed against the petitioners and therefore, if at all the petitioners can raise such a point, the petitioners have to do it before the appellate authority. 7. The next series of the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner relate to the point whether the means of the petitioner have to be ascertained before proceeding with the execution of a civil money decree. In Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, , his Lordship V.R. Krishna Iyer J. has held that the simple default to discharge is not enough, that there must be some element of bad faith beyond mere indifference to pay, some deliberate or recusant disposition in the past or, alternatively, current means to pay the decree or a substantial part of it, that the provision emphasises the need to establish not mere omission to pay but an attitude of refusal on demand verging on dishonest disowning of the obligation under the decree. This has been reiterated in Anuma Gounder v. Ponnusami [1981] 2 MLJ 229, wherein it has been observed that the judgment debtor should be given an opportunity to show cause why he should not be arrested and put in the civil prison as contemplated by Order 21, rule 40(1) of the Code. The view expressed by His Lordships V.R. Krishna Iyer J. referred to above in Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, has been reiterated in Kunchumerra Rawther Ali Rawther v. Mathai Thomas, , and in Alagappan v. Rajaguru and Co. [1985] MLJ 331. These are all factors touching the execution of the money decree Radhika Purushothaman And Anr. vs Kala Manivannan And Anr. on 21 April, 1999 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1028618/ 2 passed by a civil court. Of course, it is settled law that by virtue of Section 56 of the Civil Procedure Code, a woman cannot be subjected to arrest in execution of a money decree. 8. In the instant case, we are not concerned with the arrest of the first petitioner in the execution proceedings. She had been sentenced to imprisonment under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Learned counsel has referred to a decision in Joint Secretary, Gujarat Seed. Education Board v. Dakshaishwarlal Dhorajiya [1993] 1 CPR 203, where the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat, at Ahmedabad has held that before an order can be passed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, show-cause notice should be issued against the concerned person who is alleged to have disobeyed the order of the redressal forum. That is not the point raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only point is that the first petitioner is a woman who should not be subjected to arrest. In Vikmans v. Rakesh Kumar [1992] 1 CPR 287, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Delhi has observed that the proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act are criminal in nature. A plain reading of the section itself would show that the section is punitive. It mentions penalty in the form of imprisonment and levy of fine. Therefore, when it comes to criminal proceedings, it cannot be said that the Criminal Procedure Code differentiates between a man and a woman as done under Section 56 of the Civil Procedure Code, a person whether man or woman is liable for punishment for violation of the order passed by the forum. Therefore, the principles of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be applied to the punitive provision of the Consumer Protection Act. I do not find that this matter can be admitted. This petition is rejected. Radhika Purushothaman And Anr. vs Kala Manivannan And Anr. on 21 April, 1999 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1028618/ 3
Section 27 in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
27. Penalties.— 95 [
(1) ] Where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made 2[or the complainant] fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, such trader or person 96 [or complainant] shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousands rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both: 97 [***]
98 [(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall have the power of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the trial of offences under this Act, and on such conferment of powers, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, on whom the powers are so conferred, shall be deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
(3) All offences under this Act may be tried summarily by the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be.]
Madras High Court Radhika Purushothaman And Anr. vs Kala Manivannan And Anr. on 21 April, 1999 Equivalent citations: 1999 97 CompCas 782 Mad Author: A B Khadiri Bench: B A Khadiri JUDGMENT Akbar Basha Khadiri, J. 1. The petitioners invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to quash the proceedings in E.P. No. 17 of 1998 in O.P. No. 320 of 1996 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (South), Madras. 2. This petition has arisen in this way : The first respondent filed O. P. No, 320 of 1996, on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (South), Madras, against the petitioners herein, for refund of certain sum of money, The redressal forum passed orders on December 13, 1996, whereunder the petitioners were directed to refund a sum of Rs. 14,280 to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 by way of compensation with cost Rs. 500. The petitioners did not make any payment and therefore, the complainant instituted execution proceedings in E. P. No. 17 of 1998. In that E.P., the Consumer Redressal Forum passed orders sentencing the first petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Now, the petitioners have come forward with the instant petition to quash the proceedings. The only contention of the petitioners is that the first petitioner is a woman and as per the provisions of Section 56 of the Civil Procedure Code, a woman is not liable to be arrested in execution of a money decree. 3. Heard both the counsel. Section 56 of the Civil Procedure Code, recites as under : "56. Prohibition of arrest or detention of women in execution of decree for money.--Notwithstanding anything in this part, court shall not order the arrest or detention in the civil prison of a woman in execution of a decree for the payment of money." 4. Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, recites as under : "25. Enforcement of orders by the forum, the State Commission or the National Commission.--Every order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission may be enforced by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may he, in the same manner as if it were a decree or order made by a court in a suit pending therein and it shall be lawful for the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission to send, in the event of its inability to execute it such order to the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction : (a) in the case of an order against a company, the registered office of the company is situated, or Radhika Purushothaman And Anr. vs Kala Manivannan And Anr. on 21 April, 1999 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1028618/ 1 (b) in the case of an order against any other person, the place where the person concerned voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, is situated, and thereupon, the court to which the order is so sent, shall execute the order as if it were a decree or order sent to it for execution." 5. Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, recites as under : "27. Penalties.--Where a trade or a person against whom a complaint is made or the complainant fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, such trader or person or complainant shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both : Provided that the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, may, if it is satisfied that the circumstances of any case so require, impose a sentence offen prisonment or fine, or both, for a term less than the minimum term and the amount less than the minimum amount, specified in this section." 6. It is needless to point out that the Consumer Redressal Forum has passed a money decree and that decree was sought to be executed in E. P. No. 17 of 1998. But the Consumer Redressal Forum has imposed a sentence of imprisonment for one month on the first petitioner under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited several authorities before me to lay stress that the proceedings shall be quashed. But the decisions do not apply to the facts of the instant case. In Managing Director, Nadippisai Pulavar K.R. Ramaswamy Sugar Mills v. Fareed Bawa , my learned brother P. Sathasivam J. has held that no compensation can be awarded where loss has not been proved. This is a factor touching the merits of the matter. An ex parte decree has been passed against the petitioners and therefore, if at all the petitioners can raise such a point, the petitioners have to do it before the appellate authority. 7. The next series of the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner relate to the point whether the means of the petitioner have to be ascertained before proceeding with the execution of a civil money decree. In Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, , his Lordship V.R. Krishna Iyer J. has held that the simple default to discharge is not enough, that there must be some element of bad faith beyond mere indifference to pay, some deliberate or recusant disposition in the past or, alternatively, current means to pay the decree or a substantial part of it, that the provision emphasises the need to establish not mere omission to pay but an attitude of refusal on demand verging on dishonest disowning of the obligation under the decree. This has been reiterated in Anuma Gounder v. Ponnusami [1981] 2 MLJ 229, wherein it has been observed that the judgment debtor should be given an opportunity to show cause why he should not be arrested and put in the civil prison as contemplated by Order 21, rule 40(1) of the Code. The view expressed by His Lordships V.R. Krishna Iyer J. referred to above in Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, has been reiterated in Kunchumerra Rawther Ali Rawther v. Mathai Thomas, , and in Alagappan v. Rajaguru and Co. [1985] MLJ 331. These are all factors touching the execution of the money decree Radhika Purushothaman And Anr. vs Kala Manivannan And Anr. on 21 April, 1999 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1028618/ 2 passed by a civil court. Of course, it is settled law that by virtue of Section 56 of the Civil Procedure Code, a woman cannot be subjected to arrest in execution of a money decree. 8. In the instant case, we are not concerned with the arrest of the first petitioner in the execution proceedings. She had been sentenced to imprisonment under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Learned counsel has referred to a decision in Joint Secretary, Gujarat Seed. Education Board v. Dakshaishwarlal Dhorajiya [1993] 1 CPR 203, where the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat, at Ahmedabad has held that before an order can be passed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, show-cause notice should be issued against the concerned person who is alleged to have disobeyed the order of the redressal forum. That is not the point raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only point is that the first petitioner is a woman who should not be subjected to arrest. In Vikmans v. Rakesh Kumar [1992] 1 CPR 287, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Delhi has observed that the proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act are criminal in nature. A plain reading of the section itself would show that the section is punitive. It mentions penalty in the form of imprisonment and levy of fine. Therefore, when it comes to criminal proceedings, it cannot be said that the Criminal Procedure Code differentiates between a man and a woman as done under Section 56 of the Civil Procedure Code, a person whether man or woman is liable for punishment for violation of the order passed by the forum. Therefore, the principles of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be applied to the punitive provision of the Consumer Protection Act. I do not find that this matter can be admitted. This petition is rejected. Radhika Purushothaman And Anr. vs Kala Manivannan And Anr. on 21 April, 1999 Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1028618/ 3
Section 27 in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
27. Penalties.— 95 [
(1) ] Where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made 2[or the complainant] fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, such trader or person 96 [or complainant] shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousands rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both: 97 [***]
98 [(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall have the power of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the trial of offences under this Act, and on such conferment of powers, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, on whom the powers are so conferred, shall be deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
(3) All offences under this Act may be tried summarily by the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be.]
Helpful
Helpful
Share
Read Related Answers
fraud by mcd and scraper agency
Dear Client,
You can file a complaint to the local police about the incident and ascertain the office of the people posing as members of MCD agency. If the members are legitimate, you can connect with...
Electric pole installation
Dear Client,
approach the electric board of your city and and file for grievances,the electricity board depends from every states like BESCOM etc. since it is a government department, it as to instal...
Format of application file u/s 71 of the Consumer Protection Act
Dear Client,
Section 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, provides the District Commission, State Commission, and National Commission the power to enforce their orders in the same way as a court d...
Bajaj finance closed my loan and provided NOC but re-open the account
Dear Client,
In the given scenario, serving a legal notice to Bajaj Finance, file a complaint against them before the Dist. Consumer Commission for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice clai...
Money on hold
Dear Client,
Even if it is your hard-earned money, the source of income is illegal and impermissible under the company's policy. So, you cannot demand or keep that income with you as a matter of right...
Read Blogs on Consumer Protection
Consumer Protection Lawyers
Find Lawyers by Location
