Jail threat hangs over Vodafone!

On March 24,2008,the Forum passed an interim order directing Vodafone to restore Upadhyay’s connection. But company did not obey the order,and complainant moved the Forum again.

Following this,Vodafone promptly restored his connection,conceding that it was a mistake,as his account was confused with some other defaulting connection.

However,Upadhyay then filed another application under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act,which provides for imprisonment for disobeying “any” order of the Forum.

Vodafone took the stand that it had rectified its mistake since then. Moreover,it contended that provision of punishment for disobeying the Forum applies only to the final orders,and not interim ones.

The Forum accepted the contention and dismissed his application for penalising the Company.

Against this,Upadhyay moved the High Court and Division bench of Justices F I Rebello and J H Bhatia held in the order last week that Forum was wrong,and disobeying an interim order was punishable.

“In matters pertaining to consumer protection,the law must be interpreted in favour of the consumer,” judges said.

The word ‘order’ in section 27 of Consumer Protection Act meant any order,the High Court said

“No doubt the sentence of imprisonment may be harsh,but then the respondent must suffer for failure to comply with the orders (of Consumer Forum),” High Court said.

This was necessary “to give greater protection to the consumer and to make execution of orders more effective and less expensive,” the court said,asking the Forum to consider Upadhyay’s application for prosecuting Vodafone afresh.

Court,however,noted that it was not making any comment on the merit of Upadhyay’s allegations against the company.