Punitive Damages of Fifty Thousand imposed upon complainant for false and contradictory assertions in its complaint

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): While reiterating that if any litigant approaches any Judicial Fora by making false assertions in its complaint and tries to mislead the Judicial Fora, then such litigant is not entitled to any relief in equity and such petition should be thrown away at the threshold itself, NCDRC imposed costs of Rs 50,000 on a man for making false averments in the complaint and also for casting uncalled aspersions on the State Commission. Earlier, the complainant had approached district forum alleging “deficiency in service” on the part of a company Anklist Exim Inc. in removing the defects of a gold testing machine purchased from the company. In its defense, the Company contended that the complainant had taken the contradictory stand with regard to the receipt of gold testing machine in question by him. It was averred, that in the complaint it has been claimed that the complainant had already received the gold testing machine but it was not working properly, whereas in the legal notice sent by the complainant, it has been pleaded that the Company has not supplied the gold testing machine after having received the full amount of consideration money. Deciding in favor of the complainant, District forum directed the company to replace the machine and also to pay Rs 55,000 to the complainant. In appeal filed by the Company, State Commission modified the said order and directed the Company to only pay Rs 55,000 to the complainant. Challenging the State Commission’s order, complainant filed revision petition before NCDRC, blaming his counsel for deliberately misleading the state consumer commission by wrongly submitting that the company had replaced the defective machine. After perusal of material on record, NCDRC held the complainant guilty of misleading the Court by making false and contradictory averments as it was submitted by the complainant before the state commission that he had received the machine and the legal notice sent by his counsel to the firm showed that it was yet to be received. While dismissing the revision petition, NCDRC also directed the complainant to pay for punitive damages. (Noor Islam Mondal v. Anklist Exim Inc.2014 SCC OnLine NCDRC 344, decided on November 11, 2014)

One comment

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.