Man fined Rs 10,000 for ‘unparliamentary’ emails sent to consumer body

4 min readNew DelhiJun 17, 2026 09:00 AM IST

The consumer commission noted that the man had admitted having used unparliamentary language in emails sent while pursuing his grievance. (AI-generated image)

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.

‘No administrative control over e-Jagriti website’

The commission noted that Panwar expressly admitted having used unparliamentary language in emails sent while pursuing his grievance.

The complainant argued that the e-Jagriti portal merely reflected that the matter had been adjourned and did not indicate that he was required to submit a physical copy of the complaint.

Rejecting the contention, the commission pointed out that it had already informed him through emails that it had no administrative control over the e-Jagriti website.

The commission added that it cannot decide on the design and the information as available on the e-Jagriti website.

The consumer body pointed out that filing of a physical copy of the complaint is a necessary and binding requirement and no excuse for not filing the copy can be entertained.

The consumer body noted that the complainant has not filed a physical copy of the complaint despite several opportunities provided by the forum.

The commission noted that the complainant has chosen not to pay the cost in compliance with the order on the last date of hearing despite showing disrespect toward the forum on a public platform.

Noting that the complainant had not made payment of the cost of Rs 5,000 in compliance with the previous order, the consumer body imposed an additional cost of Rs 5,000 on the man.

The consumer body directed the complainant to pay Rs 10,000 in the State Consumer Welfare Fund within fifteen days.

Used unparliamentary language

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.

Story continues below this ad

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.

Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape.

Expertise

Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen.

Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on:

Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts.

Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy.

Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More

Tags:

Consumer dispute Redressal Commission