Back
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BOMBAY
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President;
Mr. M.G. Gavai & Smt Ellen Dharkar, Members
B.R. PRAJAPATI—Complainant
versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.—Opp. Party
Misc. Application No. 72 of 1993—Decided on 14.12.1993
Public sector undertakings are expected to be more responsive and obedient to court orders and should exhibit regard and respect to the orders of the Commission.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Non-compliance with court order - The court imposed a maximum penalty on the insurance company for non-compliance with the order of the Consumer Protection Act, emphasizing that public sector undertakings are expected to be more responsive and obedient to court orders and should exhibit regard and respect to the orders of the Commission. The court declined to take a lenient view due to the company's repeated non-compliance and imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000.
Fact of the Case:
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. failed to comply with the order of the Consumer Protection Act, leading to a complaint by the complainant. The company made a belated payment, but the complainant argued for the imposition of maximum penalty under Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance company, as a public sector undertaking, should be more responsive and obedient to court orders. It emphasized that the company's repeated non-compliance and the nature of being a public sector undertaking warranted a serious view, leading to the imposition of a fine of Rs. 10,000.
Issues: Non-compliance with court order, imposition of penalty, nature of public sector undertaking's accountability
Ratio Decidendi: Public sector undertakings are expected to exhibit regard and respect to court orders and should be more responsive and obedient. Repeated non-compliance and the nature of being a public sector undertaking warrant a serious view and may lead to the imposition of maximum penalty.
Final Decision: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 for its conviction under Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President—Heard Shri Mendon, Advocate for the complainant and Shri Chile, Advocate for the opposite party i.e. New India Assurance Co. Shri Mendon has stated that the order dtd:28.7.1993 passed by this Commission in complaint No. 316/92 has not been complied with by opposite party even after the expiry of five months and only yesterday Rs. 97,792/has been paid by cheque to the complainant. According to Shri Mendon the disobedience of the order of this Commission is fully established and therefore maximum sentence requires to be imposed under Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The New India Assurance Co. has been already held guilty under Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act for non-compliance of the order passed by this commission dtd. 28.7.93 in complaint No. 315/92. In view of our fioding dtd. 2.12.1993 we have fixed the hearing today to hear opposite party on the point of sentence only. We have heard Shri Mendon, Advocate for the complainant and Shri Chile, Advocate for the opposite party. According to Shri Mendon maximum penalty as provided under Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act be imposed on the insurance company and the payment made by opposite party belatedly should not be considered as a mitigating circumstance because the insurance company has exhibited utter disregard to the order of this Commission. As against this, Shri Chile argued mat a lenient view should be taken because the insurance company is an organisational set up and is a public undertaking.
2. After hearing the arguments, we do not agree with Mr. Chile that a lenient view should be taken because opposite party is a public undertaking. A public undertaking has to be more responsive and obedient to the Court orders. Opposite Party is an organisation dedicated to serve the people. It earns huge profits. Therefore, it must exhibit regard and respect to the orders of this Commission. We find that the Insurance Companies are daily before us in some or the other proceedings and every time some or the other lame excuse is put forth for non-compliance of the orders. Under these circumstances considering the facts and circumstances of this case, as public sector undertaking is more accountable than individuals the offence committed under Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act should be viewed more seriously. For the aforesaid reasons we decline to take a lenient view and impose maximun penalty of fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Hence, we pass the following order:
ORDER
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bombay at Horn by House, 2nd flr. J.N. Heradia Marg, Ballard Estate, Bombay-38 is sentenced to pay Rs. 10,000/- as fine for its conviction under Sec. 27 of the C.P. Act. The amount of fine should be deposited before this Commission within a week from to-day, failing which the Registrar of this Commission shall issue a warrant for levy of fine and send it to Collector……..3/ Bombay for execution under Sec. 421(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Order accordingly.
–––
