PRESENTED BY: -

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT1956

Presented by:- Roll Num

P.Vinod Kumar 1131

Pawan Kumar 1132

Pooja Chaudhary 1133

Prachi Sharma 1134

Pradeep Singha 1135

Praveen kumar 1136

Punitha P. Reddy 1137

Rajkumar Shah 1138

Rajnish Deo 1139

Ramkrishna 1140

In t roduc t ion

Consumer protection consists of laws and organizations designed to ensure the rights of consumers as well as fair trade competition and the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. The laws are designed to prevent businesses that engage in fraud or specified unfair practices from gaining an advantage over competitors and may provide additional protection for the weak and those unable to take care of themselves.

Contd…

Consumer protection laws are a form of government regulation which aim to protect the rights of consumers. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue, such as food. Consumer protection is linked to the idea of "consumer rights" (that consumers have various rights as consumers), and to the formation of consumer organizations, which help consumers make better choices in the marketplace and get help with consumer complaints.

CONTINUED BY:-VINOD

Tribeni Cold Storage Private Limited vs National Insurance Company Limited

[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 19 Jan 2012]

Consumer Protection - Insurance - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Breakdown - Loss - Claim - Repudiation - Complainant was running a cold storage for which he had taken 4 different insurance policies - There was sudden break down of AIU-400 engine and deterioration of stock - Insurance Co. was duly informed about the said breakdown and complainant tried their best to save the stock but it was not saved due to major breakdown - Claim for loss was made - Opposite Party repudiated said claim - Complaint was filed before State Commission - Opposite Party contended that loss of potato due to deterioration of stock for rise of temperature due to failure of the engine was not covered in the DOS policy - State Commission had considered the relevant policy conditions and come to the conclusion that grounds of repudiation of claim were reasonable and acceptable and dismissed the complaint

Contd…

On appeal, National Commission partly allowed the appeal and remanded back the matter to State Commission for reconsideration - State Commission reconfirmed the earlier order and again dismissed the complaint - Hence, instant appeal - Whether DOS policy did not cover any loss due to deterioration of stock arising out of damage to the set - Held, Opposite Party had categorically taken a position that the DOS policy did not cover any loss due to deterioration of stock arising out of damage to the generator set - 'Oil Engines/DG sets were never endorsed in the DOS Policy as per procedure norms for issuance of policy' - No evidence was placed on record by complainant against alleged disconnection of power during that period - Complainant did not produce any evidence before the State Commission to show that the policy documents were not sent to him or, if sent, were not delivered to him - Impugned order of State Commission upheld - Appeal dismissed

CONTINUED BY:-PAWAN

Vikas B. Patharkar Vs Aditya Associates

[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 30 Jan 2012]

Consumer Protection - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Deficiency in service - Unfair trade practice - Withdrawal of complaint - Liberty to file fresh complaint - Maintainability - Appellant/complainant desired to purchase a flat to be constructed by respondent No. 1/opposite party - Total price of the flat was Rs. 37,000,00/- - Appellant paid Rs. 10,00,000/- as earnest money to respondent no. 1 as part consideration, for which respondent no. 1 issued receipt - Appellant, realized that respondent no. 1 agreed to sell the suit premises to a rank third party - Appellant served a notice through his Advocate calling upon respondent no. 1 to hand over possession of the premises in question

Contd…

Thereafter, appellant filed a Consumer Complaint against respondents for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice before State Commission - Thereafter appellant filed an application for withdrawal of the complaint sought permission to file a fresh before the appropriate Commission/Forum - State Commission permitted simple withdrawal but without any liberty to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action before the Consumer Fora - Hence, instant appeal - Whether impugned order passed by State Commission was justified - Held, all the issues which were taken up in instant appeal, were nowhere mentioned in the application for withdrawal of the complaint - By way of instant appeal, appellant wanted to introduce an altogether a new case, which could not be permitted under the law - A valuable right was already accrued to respondents due to the withdrawal of the complaint - No infirmity or ambiguity was found in impugned order passed by State Commission - Appeal dismissed.

CONTINUED BY:-POOJA

Kasturbhai Vishwambhar Dayal Vs State of Gujarat and others

[GUJARAT HIGH COURT, 03 Feb 2012]Criminal - Practice & Procedure - Health &

Drug - Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955, s. 7/16 16(1) a(i) - Food adulteration - Conviction - Sustainability - 2nd respondent (Food Inspector) send samples to Public Health Laboratory for analysis, which was taken from appellant's shop - Public analyst confirmed samples were adulterated under 1955 Rules - Trial Court convicted and sentenced appellant u/s. 7 r/w s. 16 (1) a(i) of the Act- Appellate Court partly allowed appeal and confirmed conviction but reduced the sentence

Contd…

Hence, instant revision by appellant - Whether conviction recorded by Trial Court was sustainable - Held, there was major contradiction in the report of public analyst and report of CFL - Prosecution failed to examine public analyst which was also turned down by Trial Court - Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant - Hence, Courts below committed grave error in convicting appellant - Appeal allowed.

CONTINUED BY:-PRACHI

Delhi: Discom to pay Rs 10K to woman for inflated bill: Consumer forum

BSES Yamuna Power Ltd has been asked by a consumer forum here to pay Rs 10,000 to one of its customers as compensation for “harassing” her by sending an inflated bill and then disconnecting her electricity supply for not paying it.

The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum said that the “arbitrary and illegal” act of the discom of sending an inflated bill of over Rs 81,000 to the complainant, Zarina Khatoon, amounts to “deficiency” of service and “illegal trade practice.”

CONTINUED BY:-PRADEEP

(1) D. K. Enterprises; (2) Kawarlal and Company Vs Commissioner of Customs(Imports)

[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 23 Feb 2012]Health & Drug - Administrative - Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1948, r. 43 - Import of Beverage Grade material - Not for medicinal use - Licence - Validity - Petitioners were importing Beverage Grade material not for medicinal use covered under Pharma and drug use - Petitioners filed writ petition seeking for quashing of the direction issued by drug authorities for the production of Form 10 license of the Act, and to release the goods without imposing any condition - Single Judge relying upon report of Central Drug Laboratory had doubted about labels affixed on the containers and found that an appropriate investigation should be done and in the event of finding that they were drugs to be used for human being, necessary licence in particular form was to be obtained and directed respondents to adjudicate the issue based on impugned notice issued

Contd…

Hence, instant appeals - Whether Single Judge was justified in passing order - Held, u/r. 43 r/w sch. D of the Rules, petitioners were entitled for exemptions and there was absolutely no question of asking for licence in Form 10 and finding in that regard, could not be accepted - Impugned orders in writ petitions were set aside - Respondents were directed to release the said goods to petitioners on the declared value, on verification of proper compliance of r. 43 r/w sch. D of the Rules and label, which had been affixed - Further, insofar as valuation of imported goods were concerned, it was open to parties to move before CESTAT, in which event, any condition that might be imposed by Tribunal should be complied by petitioners - However, except one of the item in respect of Bill of entry, others which were already time barred were to be re-exported and if authorities come across any material that imported substance cleared as an exempted item was not used for declared purpose, it was open to respondents to proceed against petitioners in accordance with law - Appeals allowed.

CONTINUED BY:-PRAVIN

Kingfisher Airlines vs M. L. Sudheen

[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 27 Feb 2012]

Consumer Protection - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Deficiency in service - Unfair trade Practice - Complainant purchased a package of air tickets for the sum of Rs.50,000/- which entitled him to 26 tickets from Opposite Party (OP) - Complainant could not make use of any of those tickets because OP refused to allow him to travel on the routes opted by him and also despite many requests, did not refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- paid by him - Complaint filed against OP was allowed by District Forum - State Commission dismissed OP's appeal thereafter

Contd…

Hence, instant revision petition - Whether the order of State Commission was justified and sustainable - Held, if the District Forum erred and held OP guilty of unfair trade practice, the State Commission went a step ahead in the same unwarranted direction and, in addition to the award of the District Forum, imposed a punitive cost of Rs.10,000/- on OP - State Commission, instead of examining the evidence on record, went off at a tangent to base its conclusions on general perceptions of its own - Impugned order of the State Commission therefore, totally unsustainable and hence set aside - Revision partly allowed.

CONTINUED BY:-PUNITHA

This case is related to Automobiles in general and Motor bikes And this was reported in Times of India or Indian Express. The case pertains to a Bajaj CT 100 motorcycle where Vehicle dealer had promised a mileage of 100 + kms Since the customer could not get the promised mileage he approached the dealer and during the subsequent checking of the defective vehicle even by company service engineers could not achieve the promised figures customer demanded compensation. Since they refused to entertain any claims for compensation the customer had no other option than approaching the consumer forum. The case was finally settled by the national commission in favor of customer by awarding replacement of vehicle and monetary compensation along with court cost.

CONTINUED BY:-RAJ

Genesis Immigration Private Limited vs Arun Williams

[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 22 Feb 2012]

Consumer Protection - Consumer protection Act, 1986 - Deficiency in service - Unfair trade practice - Complainant planned to study in Australia for which he required a visa for travel and admission into a suitable college in Australia - Complainant's father met Opposite party no. 2 (OP-2) in this behalf and also met Opposite party no. 1 (OP-1) on his advice - An offer letter for admission in college was obtained by Ops - Complainant deposited Rs.2,67,000/- in the account of OP-2 - OP-2 was also paid Rs.50,000/- for his services and had sought another Rs.50,000/- after the visa was obtained - Eventually complainant could not leave for Australia as his visa application was not even submitted to the High Commission of Australia - Nor did he Complainant could not get the refund of the course fee and the service charge paid to the OP-2 - Having failed to secure either access to the course in college or refund of the monies paid, complainant filed consumer complaint - District Forum allowed the complaint - Aggrieved by the order, OP's preferred appeals, State Commission dismissed both appeals

Contd…

Hence, instant revision petition - Whether State Commission was justified in dismissing the appeals - Held, OP-1 admitted that OP-2 was known to OP-1 and both were in the same business - Yet it was claimed that OP-1 was asked by OP-2 to guide him and he had rendered the necessary assistance to the complainant in the matter - OP-1 called it 'complimentary assistance', without explaining why an agency in the business of immigration services, should be providing free assistance to a person who came through a business associate (OP-2) - OP-1 also admitted in the written statement that enrolment/admission of complainant to the course was through him as the authorized agent of the college - No substance was found in the argument of OP-1 that their role was limited to offering complimentary assistance - Impugned order of State Commission was upheld.

CONTINUED BY:-RAM

Mahima Real Estate Private Limited Through Dhiredra Madan Managing Director Vs Radheyshyam Sharma

Consumer Protection - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 s. 21 (b) - Sale - Refund of excess money paid - Petitioner agreed to sell Office with super built up area of 436 sq. ft. at Rs. 3,600/- per sq. ft. to respondent - Respondent paid 15%, of amount through cheque and financed Rs. 11,79,016/- from the bank and paid to petitioner - Petitioner allotted 327.40 sq. ft. built up area, whereas amount of Rs. 16,71,616/- was mentioned in the letter, this amount comes for 436 sq. ft. whereas only 327.40 sq. ft. area was allotted to the respondent - Price of allotted area comes to Rs. 11,78,640; a sum of Rs. 3,92,976/- was charged in excess from the respondent which he was entitled to recover with interest - Respondent filed complaint and prayed that excess amount be returned back to him and petitioner be directed to deliver possession of office to respondent as agreed - District Forum allowed the complaint - On appeal by petitioner, State Commission dismissed the same

Contd…

Hence, instant revision petition - Whether the Commission below was justified in dismissing the appeal of petitioner - Held, defence taken by petitioner in instant petition was that, 327.40 sq. ft. was the carpet built up area whereas, super built up area was 436 sq. ft. and respondent had to pay the payment for 436 sq. ft., the super built up area - Respondent made payment for 436 sq. ft. area, therefore petitioner could not be allowed to state that 436 sq. ft. was the super built up area and not the carpet area - There was no illegality or material irregularity in instant case on the part of State Commission - Impugned order upheld - Petition dismissed.

CONTINUED BY:-RAJNISH

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Sudesh

[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 27 Feb 2012]

Consumer Protection - Insurance - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Claim - Repudiation - Entitlement of - Respondents husband (deceased) obtained a policy for life of Rs.5 lakhs from appellant LIC of India - Deceased died 13 months later after taking the policy and the claim under the policy was repudiated by appellant on the ground that the deceased had withheld material information at the time of seeking the insurance cover - Respondent filed complaint, which was allowed by State Commission

Contd…

Hence, instant appeal - Whether the State Commission was justified in allowing the complaint - Held, appellant relied entirely on the record of treatment for repudiation of the claim under a policy taken more than one year - Appellant could not point to any other evidence produced before the State Commission, which could show that the deceased suffered from any or all of those ailments at the time when the proposal for insurance was made - Question of disentitlement under the insurance policy, on the ground of concealment/suppression of information, would have arisen in case only if there was evidence to show that the insured had undergone hospitalization/treatment for any disease in near proximity of the time when insurance policy was obtained and had chosen not to disclose it - Further, voluntary disclosure of information relating to occasional drinking, as made in the proposal form by the deceased, was not investigated further before appellant chose to issue the insurance policy in favour of the deceased - Impugned order of State Commission was upheld - Appeal dismissed.