A lady was assaulted in a train and her valuables taken away. She complained to the railway authorities who failed to offer her any assistance. Thereafter, she moved the state Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Commission awarded compensation to the lady. On appeal, the National Commission set aside the order holding that there was no deficiency in service. The Supreme Court held inter alia that such conduct amounted to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. In this case, the negligence was compounded, the complainant being an old and sickly lady. Her appeal was entitled to succeed with costs (Sumitradevi M. Dhanwatay vs Union of India & Ors).
A person convicted of offence relating to dowry death was held not guilty by the Andhra Pradesh High Court inter alia on the ground that there was no agreement between the parties for any give and take. The term ‘dowry’ in the Dowry Prohibition Act contemplates dowry given or agreed to be given at, before, or any time after marriage or in connection with marriage. Relying on the relevant provisions of the statute, the Supreme Court held inter alia that in cases of dowry deaths, demand for dowry is itself punishable. The interpretat- ion that there can be conviction only if there is agreement for dowry would be contrary to the mandate and object of the Act (State of Andhra Pradesh vs Raj Gopal AsawaI).
Offence of food adulteration under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act solely on the basis of invoice cannot be sustained, more so when even the invoice does not indicate the name of the accused. The food inspector purchased salt which did not conform to the prescribed standard. The notice indicated inter alia that the salt was iodised Tata Salt against bill no. 4987. The retailer furnished particulars of the present accused from whom he claimed to have purchased the salt. However, the invoice produced by the retailer did not indicate the name of the accused. The accused adduced evidence inter alia that the salt sold vide bill no. 4987 was not Tata Salt. The Supreme Court held that there was no evidence as to whom the invoice was issued and to whom the article was sold. The conviction was based solely on the invoice, even the genuineness of which could not be proved. The conviction and sentence was set aside (Mohinder Kumar vs State of Haryana).
SOLON
