AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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.
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 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.