The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for caution and equitable exercise of jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the Consumer Fora, emphasizing that the power is for rendering justice and not for harassment.

M.B. Shah, J.

1. I. Exercise of jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986:

2. Before dealing with the matter on merits, we would caution the Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, all over the country, that powers vested in the Consumer Fora under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 are to be exercised cautiously and are not to be misused or used in arbitrary manner. The equitable jurisdiction conferred on the Consumer Fora is to be exercised in just and equitable manner.

3. In this case, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that for extraneous reasons, against the Chairman-cum- Managing Director of the National Insurance Company Ltd. non-bailable warrants were issued by the District Forum despite the fact that the District Forum was informed that the insurance company has preferred an Appeal against the order passed by it. Further, the warrants were issued even though the District Forum had attached the account of the insurance company with the Punjab National Bank, Bareilly, on 13.12.1999. Surprisingly, the District Forum has also observed that for recalling the warrants, an undertaking should be given by the Divisional Manager of the insurance company to the effect that no Appeal would be filed or if filed, the same would not be pressed.

4. On the basis of the said threat, the Divisional Manager of the insurance company wrote that the insurance company has deposited the amount with the learned forum and that after recall of the warrant issued under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act against all officers of the company, no further Appeal would be filed in any higher forum and if filed, shall not be pressed by the insurance company.

5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submitted that the insurance company has stated so on its own. In our view, this is unbelievable and the learned Counsel ought not to have believed the same.

6. In our view, the Consumer Fora, all over the country, should take care and caution before issuing such warrants or summons. This power is vested in the Consumer Fora for rendering justice and not for harassing.

7. No doubt, the Consumer Fora is required to exercise equitable jurisdiction so that harassed consumers do not suffer. But, that would not empower the Consumer Fora to exercise jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Act in any arbitrary and unjustified manner.

8. In our view, the order of issuance of warrants by the Consumer Fora against the judgment and taking of an undertaking from the officers of the Insurance Company that appeal would not be filed against the order passed by the District Forum was totally arbitrary, unjustified and de-hors judicial norms. District Forum ought to have considered that filing of appeal by the aggrieved party is statutory right. That right cannot be curtailed. Secondly, Section 15 of the Act itself provides how the consumer is to be protected in case an appeal is filed. Hence, we strongly condemn the act of the District Forum in issuing warrants against the Chairman of the National Insurance Company Ltd. and also taking of an undertaking from its officers not to file appeal against its order.

9. II. On merits:

On merits, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company submitted that as per the Claim Form tendered by the complainant, it is clear that the vehicle was not used but was kept standing at the premises of the complainant since 1990 and she has mentioned the same at four places in the Claim Form. He, therefore, submitted that for a vehicle, which was not in use for more than four years, there is no question of theft being committed. He further submitted that there were arrears of Road-tax and Passenger-tax and Fitness Certificate was also not in existence at the relevant time. It is also pointed out that the State Bank of India had financed the vehicle and the dues were not paid by the complainant. The preliminary Police Investigation