Consumer Court forums in Mumbai, Navi Mumbai and Thane

Consumer matters pertaining to deficiency in products, unfair trade practices, services and goods which are hazardous to life, trade or services provider, deficiency in services are filed before consumer forums.Our expert consumer legal consultant will help you in filing consumer complaints before district consumer redressal forum, appeal before state commission & final appeal before national commission. The jurisdiction for filing district forum complaint is upto Rs. 20 lacs & for the state commission is upto Rs. 20 lacs to 1 crores. If the claim of the compensation is more than Rs. 1 Crores.

Following are the addresses of district dispute redressal forums in Mumbai, Navi Mumbai and Thane district area. Consumer disputes to be filed against the party having their business address in local jurisdiction can be filed before respective consumer forums.

File complaint to district forum

1.    South Mumbai Dist. Consumer Dispute Forum
Arun Chember, 6th Floor, Tardeo, Mumbai Central (W), Mumbai.

2.    Central Mumbai Dist. Forum
Arum Chember, 6th Floor, Tardeo, Mumbai Central(W), Mumbai.

3.    Mumbai Suburban Dist. Forum
Administrative Bldg. 3rd Floor Bandra Govt. Colony, Near C.B.D. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 034.

4.    Thane Dist. Forum
Room No. 214, 2nd Floor, Collector’s Office Thane-400 601.

5.    Addl. Thane Distt. Forum    Konkan Bhawan Annexe Bldg. 4th Floor, Room Nos. 428 & 429, Opp. C.B.D. Belapur Rly. Station, Navi Mumbai – 400 614

File complaint to district forum


Nowadays there is buzz among the people to keep the national flag as the profile pic on various social media such as facebook, twitter, whatsapp etc. Almost half of the people have changed their profile pic to national flag. This shows the wave of patriotism floating around the social media. There were messages floating throughout the social media to keep the National Flag as their profile pic and many peoples have followed that messages and have keep the national flag as their profile pic. Because we see the National Flag as the profile pic in most of the laptops, smart phones, mobiles etc. It looked like a grand celebration of Independence day was going on the social media.

Thereafter another message went viral on the social media saying the image of National Flag contains some sort of virus and installing the national flag the virus will enter the people’s laptop, smart phones, mobiles etc. This created a chaos and confusion among the people. Thereafter the people started removing the National flag from their profile pic. But the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DEITY) has not issued any notification whether the messages which being circulated are true or false. The DEITY is responsible for all the matters relating to Electronics and Information Technology. People are very much confused because they are not being properly guided by these authorities. Whether the messages which is being circulated is true or false the appropriate authorities should at least have informed the people so they can be properly guided. This information can be published on newspapers, television or on various social media so that the people can take appropriate measure to prevent it. e-Security:Securing India’s cyber space is one of the major objective of the ministry of information and technology ministry. But in this case we find no guide line given by ministry of information and technology ministry to the social media uses , the role should be active and not passive in view of the alleged threats being given under the name of national flag picture.

citizens assume that this is security breach incidence and it is responsibility to respond to such Security incident.The respond time frame says that the department will Response within 24 hours of receiving the security incident (reasonable time-frame depending upon the severity of incident).In response to such incidence it is responsibility of the ministry and department to Issue security alerts on latest threats and vulnerabilities and also make Publication of alerts within 72 hours of tracking an issue.

One of such message circulated is

मित्रों आजकल आपको एक मेसेज जरुर आता होगा जिसमे एक भारत का झंडा आता है और उसको चित्र को 15 अगस्त तक प्रोफाइल फोटो लगाने का आग्रह किया जाता है।
पर क्या आपने कभी ध्यान दिया की उस झंडे में केसरिया की जगह लाल रंग का प्रयोग हुआ है?
वह फोटो कश्मीरी आतंकवादियों के साइबर हमले का ही अगला कदम है । इसको उन्होंने मोबोला नाम दिया है (मोबाइल एबोला). यह फोटो एक स्लीपर सेल की तरह काम करेगी और इसको 15 अगस्त को जब वो आतंवादी activate करेंगे तब ये आपका सारा निजी data उनको भेज देगी और आपको भनक तक नही लगेगी।
भारत का झंडा अवश्य लगाए पर कोई दूसरी फोटो।
इस मेसेज को जितनी जल्दी हो सके अपने सभी कॉन्टेक्ट्स को फॉरवर्ड करे और भारत को साइबर हमले से बचाए।

जय हिन्द .

In such cases the Government of india and Information and technology ministry should immediately take actions and also make public aware of imminent threats perceived by the social media users.

Afterwards another message was circulated stating that our Indian Constitution does not allow us to keep the National Flag as our profile pic. It also states that it is an offence to keep the National Flag our profile pic. Although no such provision is being given in the Indian Constitution but many people who are not aware about the legal provision believe it and had removed the National flag from their profile pic.

One of the popular case in which the Naveen Jindal, a Joint Managing Director of a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act.He being in charge of the factory of the said Company situated at Raigarh in Madhya Pradesh was flying National Flag at the office premises of his factory. He was not allowed to do so by the Government officials on the ground that the same is impermissible under the Flag Code of India.

Questioning the said action, the Naveen Jinda filed a writ petition before the High Court, inter alia, on the ground that no law could prohibit flying of National Flag by Indian citizens. Flying of National Flag with respect and dignity being a fundamental right, the Flag Code which contains only executive instructions of the Government of India and, thus, being not a law, cannot be considered to have imposed reasonable restrictions in respect thereof within the meaning of clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

The High Court after hearing the matter held : (1) The question as to whether the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1950 Act’, for the sake of brevity) have been violated or not is a matter which would fall for determination of the court of law and not by the executive; (2) The restrictions imposed by the Flag Code on flying the National Flag being not law within the meaning clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, the same cannot be construed to be a penal provision; (3)However, if contravention of any of those instructions and guidelines had been issued under the 1950 Act or under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1971 Act’), the same would constitute a penal offence; (4) Referring to the debates held in the Constituent Assembly as also a passage from the book titled ‘Our National Flag’ by K.V. Singh, the High Court observed that the citizens were required to be educated by issue of Flag Code and the National Flag must be flown in a respectful manner and so long as a citizen of India does so, no restriction can be imposed on the basis of instructions contained in the Flag Code.

The union of india preferred Appeal before supreme court while passing judgment on 23/01/2004 supreme court held that ;

“Right to fly the National Flag freely with respect and dignity is a fundamental right of a citizen within the meaning of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India being an expression and manifestation of his allegiance and feelings and sentiments of pride for the nation; (ii) The fundamental right to fly National Flag is not an absolute right but a qualified one being subject to reasonable restrictions under clause 2 of Article 19 of the Constitution of India; (iii) The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 and the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 regulate the use of the National Flag ; (iv) Flag Code although is not a law within the meaning of Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution of India for the purpose of clause (2) of Article 19 thereof, it would not restrictively regulate the free exercise of the right of flying the national flag. However, the Flag Code to the extent it provides for preserving respect and dignity of the National Flag, the same deserves to be followed. (v) For the purpose of interpretation of the constitutional scheme and for the purpose of maintaining a balance between the fundamental/legal rights of a citizen vis-`-vis, the regulatory measures/restrictions, both Parts IV and IVA of the Constitution of India can be taken recourse to. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. But in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.”

But just by keeping the National Flag as the profile pic on any social media is not an offence. It shows the patriotic feeling of the people. Just by keeping the National Flag as profile pic does not shows any disrespect towards towards our National Flag. We tie the National Flag on our shirt if that is not the insult of the National Flag then how by just keeping it as Profile Pic is considered as an insult towards it. So it is very important that the people are properly guided about the legal provision of our country.


Fraud is conduct or act or course of deception, an intentional concealment, omission, or perversion of truth, to (1) gain unlawful or unfair advantage, (2) induce another to part with some valuable item or surrender a legal right, or (3) inflict injury in some manner. Willfull fraud is a criminal offense which calls for severe penalties, and its prosecution and punishment (like that of a murder) is not bound by the statute of limitations.

Indian contract act Sec 17 defines fraud as “Fraud” means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto of his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:-

Sub Section (1)
the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;
Sub Section (2)
the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;
Sub Section (3)
a promise made without any intention of performing it
Sub Section (4)
any other act fitted to deceive;
Sub Section (5)
any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent.
Under section 18
Misrepresentation” means and includes –
Sub Section (1)
the positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true
Sub Section (2)
any breach, of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gains an advantage to the person committing it, or any one claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him;
Sub Section (3)
causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement to make a mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement.

In another landmark judgment on Suppression of Material Facts Supreme Court of India Mithoolal Nayak vs Life Insurance Corporation Of … on 15 January, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 814, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 571 it was held that the policy-holder was guilty of fraudulent suppression of material facts relating to his health and the Company was entitled to avoid the contract . policy holder is not even entitled for refund of amounts as the statement was on a material matter or there was suppression of facts which it was material to disclose.

Supreme Court of India and various high Court have den precated the practice of fraud upon court and many times such litigants are thrown out of court following are some of the landmark judgments on the issue.

IN S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagnnath (dead) by Lrs., (1994) 2 SCC 1 : (1994 AIR SCW 243 : AIR 1994 SC 853) the two Judges Bench of this Court held:

“Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal” observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree by the first Court or by the highest Court-has to be treated as a nullity by every Court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court even in collateral proceedings..”

In Indian Bank v. Satyam fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 550 : (1996 AIR SCW 3281 AIR 1996 SC 2592) another two Judges bench, after making reference to a number of earlier decisions rendered by different High Courts in India, stated the legal position thus:
“Since fraud affects the solemnity, regularity and orderliness of the proceedings of the Court and also amounts to an abuse of the process of Court, the Courts have been held to have inherent power to set aside an order obtained by fraud practised upon that Court. Similarly, where the Court is misled by a party or the Court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a party, the Court has the inherent power to recall its order.”

in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors., 1993 6 JT 331, the Court held that where a preliminary decree was obtained by withholding an important document from the court, the party concerned deserves to be thrown out at any stage of the litigation.

[6] In Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, 2007 8 SCC 449, it was held that in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court is not just a court of law, but is also a court of equity and a person who invokes the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty bound to place all the facts before the court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court referred to the judgment of Scrutton, LJ. in R Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, 1917 1 KB 486, and observed:
In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will always keep in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise-guilty of misleading the Court, then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter on merits. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.
[7] In A.V. Papayya Sastry and Ors. v. Government of A.P. and Ors., 2007 AIR(SC) 1546, the Court held that Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal on any party. It confers discretion on this Court to grant leave to appeal in appropriate cases. In other words, the Constitution has not made the Supreme Court a regular Court of Appeal or a Court of Error. This Court only intervenes where justice, equity and good conscience require such intervention.
[8] In Sunil Poddar and Ors. v. Union Bank of India, 2008 2 SCC 326, the Court held that while exercising discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, the facts and circumstances of the case should be seen in their entirety to find out if there is miscarriage of justice. If the appellant has not come forward with clean hands, has not candidly disclosed all the facts that he is aware of and he intends to delay the proceedings, then the Court, will non-suit him on the ground of contumacious conduct.
[9] In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors., 2008 12 SCC 481, the court held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. The same rule was reiterated in G. Jayshree and Ors. v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and Ors., 2009 3 SCC 141.

Adv.Rajesh Tekale, High Court, Mumbai