14 May 2020

The burden of proof; of non compliance of order of consumer forum, is not on the accused.

Sec.27 of The Consumer Protection Act - Non compliance of judgment of forum - execution petition - only one respondent/accused appeared - No steps taken against other accused - Forum recorded plea without separating trial - Adjournment sought by accused is rejected - No evidence of either applicant or accused is recorded, Still forum ordered the accused to comply with the judgment on the same day till 4 pm only - Accused failed to comply with - Forum cancelled his bail and taken in custody.

Held:
   The burden of proof; of non compliance of order of consumer forum, can not be on the accused. [Para No.9]

The burden of proof; of non compliance of order of consumer forum, is not on the accused.
   When Section 27(3) of the Consumer Protection Act gives power of a Magistrate to the District Consumer Forum and the procedure that is required to be adopted by the Forum for the action under Section 27 of the Act is summary trial as contemplated under Section 260 to 262 of Cr.P.C., then unless there would have been a proper separation of trial, steps could not have been taken only against one accused.[Para No.10]

Order quashed.


Bombay High Court

Dipak Bhaskar Rane
Vs.
The State Of Maharashtra

Decided on 12/05/2020


Thanks to the Stay Home constrain occurred due to Corona Virus (COVID-19) that provided the Author an opportunity to conceptualize this blog!     ❁     This blog is designed & maintained by Adv. Jainodin Shaikh, Jalgaon
Adv. Jainodin's Legal Blog