Latest news with #V.Ramachandran
The Hindu
25-06-2025
- Automotive
- The Hindu
Consumer panel orders car dealer to refund booking amount
The Ernakulam Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has asked a dealer of Maruti Suzuki India Limited to refund the payment made by a customer, a native of Padamugal, after it was found that the dealer had failed to deliver the car booked by the customer. The Commission, comprising president D.B. Binu and members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N., in an order dated June 16, 2025, asked Nexa Palarivattom (Popular Vehicles & Services Limited) to refund the ₹9.92 lakh paid by complainant Jeny Mol Joy along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of payment till the realisation of the amount. The dealer has to pay ₹2 lakh as compensation for the mental agony, financial loss, and physical hardships endured by the complainant and inconvenience caused by deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, it said. The complainant had booked a Maruti XL-6 ZETA MT (silver) vehicle on February 7, 2022, from the authorised dealer after paying around 85% of the vehicle's on-road price of ₹11.71 lakh through finance. On May 16, 2022, the dealer informed that the vehicle was ready, but it was a new model priced at ₹13.53 lakh. No prior intimation was given about the discontinuation of the originally booked model, the complainant alleged. The dealer termed the complaint as 'baseless' and said that it was not maintainable in law. The firm alleged that the complainant was fully aware of the terms in the booking requisition form, which clearly stated that the vehicle price at the time of invoicing would apply and might change. The variant booked by the complainant underwent a standard 'facelift' with additional features, resulting in a price hike, which was beyond the dealer's control and at the sole discretion of the manufacturer, according to the dealer. However, the Commission said in its order that such hikes are typically notified publicly through announcements or press releases. There was no evidence of any such price hike announced by the manufacturer. There was also a substantial price difference between the car booked by the complainant and the new model that was offered to her, it added.
The Hindu
05-06-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Consumer rights panel slaps fine on company for failure to service water purifier
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has slapped a company engaged in manufacturing and marketing household electrical appliances with a fine of ₹30,000 for the alleged failure to repair a water purifier despite an annual maintenance contract (AMC) being in place. The Commission comprising D.B. Binu, president, and members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. issued the ex parte order on a petition filed by one Ajish. K. John of Kothamangalam against the manager of Eureka Forbes Ltd. The complainant said he had an AMC with the opposite party since 2018, which he regularly renewed for uninterrupted service. Despite this, the complainant faced repeated service issues. In April 2024, the purifier began leaking, and although a service request was raised, it was later cancelled unilaterally by the opposite party, he said. Following this, the complainant approached the Commission. However, the opposite party failed to submit any argument notes or participate in the proceedings. The Commission observed that the service lapses constituted a deficiency in service as defined under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Further, unilateral cancellation of a service request without informing the complainant amounts to an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47), as it misleads or fails to fulfil a promised contractual obligation, the Commission observed. The complainant, being deprived of clean drinking water due to the non-functioning of the purifier, endured mental agony, hardship, and inconvenience, especially given that the purifier was essential due to contaminated well water. 'The Complainant, despite diligently maintaining an Annual Maintenance Contract and repeatedly reaching out for help, was met with silence, delays, and even the unjust cancellation of service. This experience not only disrupted his daily life but also caused significant mental distress. When a consumer is compelled to approach a legal forum for the enforcement of basic service obligations, it reflects a glaring failure in corporate responsibility and empathy, values that should be at the heart of every consumer-facing organisation,' the Commission remarked. Consequently, the opposite party was directed to pay ₹25,000 as fine and another ₹5,000 towards the cost of legal proceedings.
