Consumer Cases Weekly Round-Up: 13th November 2023 To 19th November 2023
Supreme Court Is Consumer Protection Rule Invalid for Allowing More Govt Representation In Selection Committee For Forum Members? Supreme Court to Consider Case Title: Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar & ors. V. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors., Diary No(s). 45299/2023 The Supreme Court has admitted a special leave petition filed against the judgment of the Bombay High...
Supreme Court
Case Title: Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar & ors. V. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors., Diary No(s). 45299/2023
The Supreme Court has admitted a special leave petition filed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) which struck down Rule 6(1) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, method of recruitment, procedure for appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020. The quashed Rule prescribed two members from the State bureaucracy and only one member from the judiciary on the Selection Committee that recommends appointment of the President and member-judges to the State Consumer Commission and the District Consumer Fora. The High Court was of the view that the Rule diluted the involvement of the judiciary in the selection process. The High Court also set aside the appointments to the Consumer Fora made by the Maharashtra Government, however stayed the operation of the judgment for four weeks from October 20.
Party Not Entitled To Seek Relief That Has Not Been Prayed For: Supreme Court
Case Title: M/s. Rajasthan Art Emporium v. Kuwait Airways & Anr., Civil Appeal no. 9106 of 2012
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 975
The Supreme Court, while dealing with a consumer dispute, reiterated that a party is not entitled to seek relief that has not been prayed for. A bench of Justice AS Bopanna and Justice PS Narasimha was dealing with an appeal against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in which it was held that there was a delay in delivering the consignment of the complainant and that they were entitled to compensation.
Airlines Bound by Time Schedule Promised By Its Travel Agent: Supreme Court
Case Title: M/s. Rajasthan Art Emporium v. Kuwait Airways & Anr., Civil Appeal no. 9106 of 2012
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 975
The Supreme Court held that an authority is bound by the promise held by its agent under the Indian Contract Act. The Apex Court held so in the context of a consumer dispute, where Kuwait Airways, through its agent, Dagga Air Agents, had fixed a schedule of 7 days for delivery of certain goods. The Court held that the Airline was liable to pay the complainant damages for delay in delivering the consignment.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Clinic Nallam and Anr. vs A. Helen Victoria and Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Mr Justice Sudipahluwalia (Presiding Member) and AVM J. Rajendra (Member) upheld the order of the Puducherry State Commission which held Clinic Nallam (Puducherry) and its doctor liable for negligence and deficiency in service. They were held liable for leaving a ‘nut and bolt’ inside the patient’s abdomen while performing surgery. As a result, the NCDRC ordered them to pay Rs. 13,77,000/- in total to cover the patient’s expenses, hardships, and legal costs.
Jodhpur (Rajasthan) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Dinesh Kumar Tak vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) bench, headed by Dr. Shyam Sundar Lata (President) and Balveer Khudkhudiya (Member), addressed a complaint related to an accident where the automatic airbags of Maruti Suzuki Brezza failed to deploy. The bench acknowledged the significance of collision details, such as force and side-impact, in determining whether the airbags should have been activated. Consequently, the Consumer Commission was deemed unsuitable for cases requiring in-depth evidence, and the complainant was granted the option to pursue the matter in a civil court.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)
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 (Kerala) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
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.
New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–VI
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.
Northeast Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
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 (Haryana) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
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.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Chennai (Tamil Nadu)
Case: K. Balakesari vs Holiday4U
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Chennai (Tamil Nadu) bench comprising of B. Jijaa (President), TR Shivakumar (Member) and S. Nandagopalan (Member) held Holiday4U liable for unfair trade practices for not refunding the full money to a senior citizen after his 8-night package tour to South Africa was cancelled due to COVID-19 pandemic. The bench noted that Holiday4U only refunded only Rs 25,000/- of the total money of Rs 3,00,000/- paid by the complainant, thereby making it liable for unfair trade practice.