Annual Digest of Consumer Cases 2023: Part-IV

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONS Manufacturers Intentionally Withholding Necessary Spare Parts Of Products Unfair Trade Practice: Kerala Consumer Forum Case Title: Cdr. Keerthi M. Kuriens v. The Manager, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently flayed manufacturers for intentionally withholding of essential spare and consumable parts of a component, compelling the customers to abandon such otherwise functional products and acquire replacements for the same. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu, and Members V. Ramachandran, and Sreevidhia T.N. termed such tactics, which pressurize consumers to buy additional products from them, as 'restricted trade practice', Bangalore District Commission Holds IKEA India Ltd. Liable For Charging Rs. 20 For Carry Bag With Its Logo Case: Ms. Sangeetha Bohra vs IKEA India Private Limited The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M (Member) held IKEA India liable for deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice for charging extra Rs. 20 for a carry bag and directed it to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,020/- to the complainant. Ernakulam District Commission Holds Samsung India Liable For Deficiency In Service For Recurring Defects In Newly Bought Refrigerator Case: Dr Thirumeny M.J. vs Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) presided over by DB Binu (President), Ramachandran V. (Member), and Sreevidhia TN (Member), found Samsung India responsible for deficiency in service. The District Commission pointed out a common practice with manufacturing companies. These companies often attract customers with ads, but then neglect their responsibility to provide necessary spare parts and consumables. This neglect affects the proper functioning of the product over its expected lifespan, causing a significant impact on consumer rights. Jodhpur District Commission Orders Zomato To Pay Rs. 1 Lakh Compensation For Delivering Non-Veg Food Instead Of Prescribed Veg Food Items Case Title: Shekhar Detha vs Zomato Ltd. Co. and Anr. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) bench comprising Dr. Shyam Sundar Lata (President) and Balveer Khudkhudiya (Member) held Zomato liable for the incorrect delivery of non-vegetarian food items to the complainant while he ordered vegetarian food items, causing him and his family mental and physical distress and hurting their religious sentiments. The bench noted that Zomato, as a commercial entity and facilitator, cannot escape its responsibilities and ordered it to pay Rs. 1 Lakh to the complainant as compensation. Banks Must Provide Adequate Security at ATMs To Avoid Frauds, New Delhi Commission Orders PNB To Refund Lost Amount Case: Mahesh Singh Rana vs Punjab National Bank and Anr. The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–VI (Delhi) bench comprising Poonam Chaudhary (President), Bariq Ahmad (Member) and Shekhar Chandra (Member) held Punjab National Bank liable for deficiency in service for not ensuring security measures in their ATM which subsequently led to a loss of Rs 40,000/- to the Complainant. Phone Damage From Rainwater Not Covered Under Warranty, North East Delhi Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Case: Karun Kumar vs Sony India Pvt. Ltd. The North-East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Surinder Kumar Sharma (President) and Anil Kumar Bamba (Member) dismissed a complaint against Sony India noting that although the mobile phone was under the warranty, the water damage caused by rain was not covered by the company's terms and conditions of the warranty. Further, the bench noted that the complainant himself admitted that the mobile handset was damaged due to water exposure during a rain accident. Gurgaon District Commission Orders Bridgestone India To Replace Tyres, Pay Compensation Case Title: Kailash Kumar Sawalka vs Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana) bench comprising Sanjeev Jindal (President), Jyoti Siwach (Member) and Khushwinder Kaur (Member) held Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd is liable for manufacturing sub-par quality tyres which wore out prematurely, thereby, leading to significant damage and posing a safety risk to the car owner. The tyre manufacturer was directed to replace the types and compensate the car owner for mental harassment and litigation costs. South Chennai District Commission Holds Holiday4U Liable For Failure To Refund Full Amount Of Cancelled Tour Package Case: K. Balakesari vs Holiday4U The District Consumer Disputes Redressal...

Annual Digest of Consumer Cases 2023: Part-IV

Smita Singh

Tags