GET Stock QuotesNews18 APP
News18 English
Powered by cricketnext logo
»
1-min read

Jobless Man Sues Employment Exchange for Rs 87 Crore, Gets Away With Just Rs 100 Fine

National Consumer Commission said that a token monetary will act as a deterrent to desist the youth from "misusing the statutory processes provided for a consumer for better protection of his interests" and imposed a fine of Rs 100.

Utkarsh Anand | CNN-News18

Updated:August 28, 2018, 8:11 AM IST
facebookTwittergoogleskypewhatsapp
Jobless Man Sues Employment Exchange for Rs 87 Crore, Gets Away With Just Rs 100 Fine
Image for representation.
Loading...
New Delhi: Underlining that the consumer protection laws are not meant for creating "nuisance value" in government offices, the National Consumer Commission has imposed a fine of Rs 100 on an "unemployed, under-educated" youth who demanded a compensation of Rs 87 crore from Employment Exchange.

The Commission held that the man from Panchkula should deposit the fine of Rs 100 with any registered charity of his choice within four weeks and submit its receipt in the Commission.

The apex consumer forum expressed its strong disapproval that Vijay Kumar, who wanted unemployment allowance despite not fulfilling the requisite criteria, had based his case on false facts.

Kumar had demanded Rs 87 crore in compensation on account of an alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Employment Exchange to provide him information under the RTI Act.

But the Commission noted that the consumer fora had rightly arrived at the conclusion that Kumar did not give any proof of filing an RTI application.

"It is clearly evident that the complainant is attempting to misuse the statutory processes provided for for better protection of the interest of consumers to create for himself a ‘nuisance value’ in the Employment Exchange and its offices," noted the Commission.

It cited Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act and said that this was a case where Kumar should be made to compensate the opposite party for filing a vexatious plea.

"However, having regard to the fact that the opposite parties are government officers/department and the complainant is an unemployed under-educated young person, recourse to the provision of cost provided for in Section 26 of the Act is not being adopted," held the Commission.

However, the Commission called it "appropriate and albeit necessary to give stern advise of caution to the complainant through a token monetary deterrent to desist from misusing the statutory processes provided for a consumer for better protection of his interests" and imposed a fine of Rs 100.

It emphasised further: "This Act is not meant to be a tool to create ‘nuisance value’ in government offices".
Read full article
Loading...
Next Story
Next Story

Also Watch

facebookTwittergoogleskypewhatsapp

Live TV

Loading...
Loading...