A Delhi consumer commission recently dismissed a complaint and directed a man to pay Rs 10,000 after he admitted to using “unparliamentary language” in emails copied to the forum. Taking a serious view of his conduct, the commission observed that the complainant’s own explanation indicated that he had communicated with a third-party online platform in a manner intended to show “disrespect” to the commission and portray it in a “bad light”. 

President Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, along with members Ashwani Kumar Mehta and Harpreet Kaur Charya, noted that the complainant, Rakesh Panwar, had earlier been directed to pay Rs 5,000 in costs for using unparliamentary language in emails. However, he neither complied with that direction nor filed the mandatory physical copy of his complaint despite repeated opportunities. 

“The explanation given by the complainant clearly indicates that the complainant is not only accepting the fact that he has used unparliamentary language, but he is also acknowledging that he was communicating with the third-party online public platform to show disrespect to this commission and also to present this commission in a bad light. Such admission by the Complainant is viewed very seriously by this commission,” the June 1 order read. 

It was placed on record that the complainant appeared in the matter virtually, but he has not filed a physical copy of the complaint and the proof of payment of cost. 

During the argument, the complainant claimed that he is living alone and he is suffering from knee pain and a corn on the fourth toe, causing him difficulty in travelling. He further stated that because of the development project in the locality by the Delhi Jal Board, the roads are dug up and he is not able to travel. Hence, the complainant could not file a physical copy of the complaint. 

It was further claimed by the complainant that he was communicating with a public platform and website http://www.consumercomplaint.in and was interacting on the emails provided on the said website.

However, the commission found these excuses not supported by any evidence placed on record and just excuses for not complying with binding regulations and directions of this commission. 

He added that he subsequently realised that the said website is a discussion platform and not connected to any consumer court. He also mentioned that he asked queries on the said public platform without realising that he was also copying these emails to this consumer commission and other higher authorities.

The complainant also stated that the emails which he intended to send on the public discussion platform of the website were mistakenly sent to this commission as well.