Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
RAMESH G. KOHALI – Appellant
Versus
SHIVANAND SHANBAG – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedure for imprisonment under consumer law must follow criminal procedure guidelines. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. natural justice requires opportunity for defence and cross-examination. (Para 2) |
| 3. improper procedures void the validity of execution order. (Para 4) |
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 16.02.2019, whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , he having failed to comply with the order of the State Commission dated 30.01.2014 passed in Consumer Complaint No.295/2011. It is informed that pursuant to the order passed by the State Commission the Appellant is in custody in Amaravati jail for last more than 10 months.
2. The procedure to be followed by a Consumer Forum under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 came for consideration by Three Members Bench of this Commission in EA No.80/2019 in Consumer Complaint No.14/2015 (Rajnish Kumar Rohtagi & Anr. vs. Unitech Ltd. & Anr.), and the following view was taken:
27. One of the questions which came up for consideration during the course of hearing was with resp
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
