Latest news with #DistrictConsumerDisputesRedressalCommission
The Print
2 days ago
- Business
- The Print
Sale of defective TV: E-commerce firm, manufacturer found guilty of deficiency in service
It ordered the e-commerce company and the manufacturer to refund Rs 13,999 paid for the defective TV along with interest as well as give additional compensation of Rs 15,000 for mental agony and inconvenience and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs. The manufacturer's defence of attempting to resolve the issue was not supported by substantial proof, indicating a 'lackadaisical approach', the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai said in an order passed earlier this month. Mumbai, Jun 26 (PTI) Ruling that Flipkart cannot 'escape liability' as 'mere intermediary' in an online purchase, a consumer commission here has found the e-commerce platform and television manufacturing company Thomson guilty of deficiency in service after a defective TV was delivered to a customer. The complainant had purchased a Thomson brand LED TV via Flipkart on February 19, 2021 but it soon began throwing up technical glitches, including power failure, sound issues and display defects. Repeated attempts to seek redressal from the manufacturer and the online seller were in vain as no effective resolution or replacement was provided. The complainant then approached the commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Flipkart contended that it merely operates as an online intermediary facilitating transactions between sellers and consumers and does not sell or manufacture goods, adding that the complainant did not utilize the 10-day replacement policy, following which the responsibility shifted to the manufacturer. Flipkart asserted it was not a 'service provider' under the Consumer Protection Act. Thomson TV India Private Limited claimed the product was covered under warranty, with concerns attended to as per standard terms. The firm attributed delays or non-functionality to misuse, mishandling, or conditions beyond its control. The commission's order said the product malfunctioned shortly after purchase and timely complaints were made. 'Thomson TV's defence that it attempted to resolve the complaint is not supported by any substantial proof such as service visit reports or replacement records. Rather, the correspondence placed on record suggests a lackadaisical approach by the manufacturer's customer service,' the commission held in the order. The commission cited the failure to repair or replace the defective product under warranty as 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice'. Addressing the e-commerce firm's role, the commission noted the invoice bore Flipkart's branding and that customer service was routed through its platform. Hence, it 'cannot escape liability', the commission said, adding that Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules 2020 mandate e-commerce entities to ensure sellers fulfil obligations to consumers. Citing previous Supreme Court rulings, the commission said Flipkart cannot escape liability as a 'mere intermediary' given its active role in the sale and post-sale process. The e-commerce firm and TV manufacturer were jointly and severally liable for the deficiency in service, the commission stated. PTI AVI BNM This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
A flat that was never delivered: IAF officer wins legal battle against builder
1 2 Mohali: In a landmark decision that underscores the power of persistence and the importance of consumer rights, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Mohali has ruled in favour of Nameeta Rajput, a 49-year-old Indian Air Force officer, in her long-standing dispute with real estate developer Palm Heights Pvt. Ltd. Rajput, currently posted at 3BRD Chandigarh, had booked a 3BHK flat in Palm Heights project at Derabassi back in 2015. Like many homebuyers, she dreamed of a secure future in her own home. But what followed was a near-decade-long ordeal marked by broken promises, financial strain, and legal battles. Due to rising EMI burdens, Rajput later opted for a smaller 1BHK unit. Despite assurances, she never received possession of the flat. Instead, she was bombarded with legal notices from ICICI Home Finance over unpaid EMIs — on a loan she had taken in good faith, expecting the builder to fulfill their end of the bargain. You Can Also Check: Chandigarh AQI | Weather in Chandigarh | Bank Holidays in Chandigarh | Public Holidays in Chandigarh She had paid Rs 3.5 lakh (including Rs 1 lakh allegedly in cash) and secured a Rs 13.15 lakh home loan, of which Rs 10.52 lakh was disbursed to the builder. But the builder denied receiving the full amount and even questioned the existence of a valid agreement after the switch to the smaller unit. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya IC Markets Mendaftar Undo After years of silence and inaction from the builder, Rajput sent a legal notice in April 2021. When that too was ignored, she filed a formal complaint in July 2021. The builder tried to dismiss her as an investor rather than a genuine consumer, a claim the commission firmly rejected. Following a thorough review of documents, affidavits, and site photographs, the commission found Palm Heights Pvt Ltd guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The commission ordered the builder to refund Rs 2.5 lakh with 9% annual interest, full settlement of the outstanding home loan with ICICI Home Finance, correction of Rajput's CIBIL score and pay Rs 25,000 in compensation for mental harassment and litigation costs. The commission has given the builder 30 days to comply, failing which the interest rate will rise to 12% per annum.
Hindustan Times
5 days ago
- Health
- Hindustan Times
Udupi nurse loses Saudi job due to false hepatitis diagnosis; gets over ₹13 lakh compensation
Jun 23, 2025 09:20 PM IST A senior Nurse in Udupi was on Monday awarded ₹ 13.49 lakh in compensation by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission after he lost a job opportunity in Saudi Arabia due to a false hepatitis C diagnosis. The compensation amount accounts for three years of lost income, in addition to medical costs and mental agony.(Unsplash/representational) Shivakumar Shettigar, 43, a qualified industrial nurse from Udupi, was slated to join the United Medical Response Company in the gulf nation this February. However, a pre-departure medical test conducted at the National CT Scanner and Diagnostic Center in Mangaluru incorrectly indicated that he was positive for Hepatitis C, a condition that disqualifies candidates under Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) medical norms. Distressed by the result, Shettigar underwent follow-up testing at a private lab in Manipal and at the district government hospital in Udupi, both of which confirmed he was negative. Alleging negligence and the use of faulty kits, Shettigar moved the consumer forum, claiming the lab's error cost him not only the job but also significant emotional and financial distress. According to a court directive, after examining evidence and hearing both parties, the commission ruled in Shettigar's favour on May 21, 2025, directing the diagnostic centre to pay ₹ 13.49 lakh in damages within 45 days, with a 6 per cent annual interest applicable in case of default. The compensation amount accounts for three years of lost income (estimated at ₹ 82,584 per month), in addition to medical costs and mental agony.
Time of India
6 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Airline asked to pay 25K compensation to passenger
Mumbai: A consumer commission here has held that a senior citizen suffered "monetarily and mentally" after SpiceJet issued incorrect tickets while rerouting his journey in 2020, and directed the airline to pay a compensation of Rs 25,000 to the passenger. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (Suburban), in the order passed on June 17, held the budget carrier guilty of "deficient service and negligent behaviour" for the error which caused "mental harassment" to the passenger. In view of the urgent need of the passenger (age not specified in the order), the airline had made an alternate booking- where the wrong ticket was issued- after his initial flight was cancelled due to bad weather. The commission acknowledged that the flight cancellation was beyond the control of the airline, and the Air Traffic Control (ATC) had taken the decision in view of the passengers' safety. It noted the airline had taken all the necessary efforts to provide an alternate ticket to the complainant, However, the said ticket was incorrect and thereby the complainant suffered "monetarily and mentally", it said. The commission further stated the complainant also "acted negligently". "Had the complainant checked the ticket when it was issued, the mistake could have been rectified on the spot and the complainant could have saved himself from further hardship," it said. The complainant, a senior citizen residing in Ghatkopar area here, booked Spicejet tickets from Mumbai to Darbhanga for Dec 5, 2020, and a return journey two days later. While the Mumbai to Darbhanga leg of the journey was completed, the return flight was cancelled due to bad weather. PtI
India.com
6 days ago
- India.com
SpiceJet Asked To Pay Rs 25,000 To Senior Citizen For Issuing Wrong Ticket
Mumbai: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Mumbai (Suburban) has directed budget airline SpiceJet to pay Rs 25,000 to a senior citizen for issuing incorrect flight tickets, causing him mental stress and financial loss. The incident took place in December 2020, when the senior citizen from Ghatkopar had booked a round-trip ticket from Mumbai to Darbhanga with SpiceJet. While his onward journey went as planned, the return flight was cancelled due to bad weather. Acknowledging the urgency of the passenger's situation -- he had to attend a PhD online exam in Mumbai on December 8 -- the airline arranged an alternate route via Patna and Kolkata. However, the replacement booking turned out to be flawed. The connecting flight from Kolkata to Mumbai was scheduled to depart before the passenger would even arrive in Kolkata from Patna. This mistake left him stranded in Patna, forcing him to purchase a new ticket for the next day using his own money. As a result, he also missed his important online examination. The senior citizen later approached the consumer forum, accusing the airline of negligence and deficiency in service. He demanded a refund of Rs 14,577 along with Rs 2 lakh for mental agony and Rs 25,000 for legal expenses. SpiceJet responded by stating that the flight was cancelled due to bad weather, which was beyond their control, and that they had refunded the ticket fare through the booking agent. They also said they had issued the alternate flight ticket free of cost. While the consumer commission accepted that the flight cancellation was not the airline's fault, it pointed out that the issuance of an incorrect ticket was a clear act of negligence. Although the airline later reimbursed the complainant, the commission said this did not excuse the initial error. The commission also remarked that the passenger could have avoided further trouble by carefully checking the ticket at the time of issuance. Despite this, it concluded that the airline was at fault for causing unnecessary stress and inconvenience. In its final order passed on June 17, the commission directed SpiceJet to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs 5,000 towards litigation expenses.
