Upload
dinhkhanh
View
213
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
143
CHAPTER - V FINDINGS OF THE CONSUMER DISPUTE
REDRESSAL AGENCIES
In the last two decades, the consumer courts have passed judgments on a
variety of consumer grievances like unfair trade practices, supply of defective goods
and most importantly in the area of services being provided by various sectors like
banking, insurance, medical, housing, transport, telecom, tourism and travel,
electricity, etc. These judgments have provided the much needed relief to the harassed
consumers in deserving cases. While all these judgments including judgments of the
Supreme Court in appeals have been published in various compilations for use of
legal professionals, there have been very few books published to educate the common
consumer on the tremendous impact these judgments cumulatively have produced in
protecting and promoting the consumer rights. This study is meant for the common
man and addresses his concerns while dealing with, for example, an unscrupulous
builder, a grossly negligent doctor, a harassing insurance man who sits endlessly on
claims, an unresponsive Housing Board, or an insensitive tour organizer, etc. It
provides the basic information about the procedural aspects in filing a complaint with
the consumer forum and explains how simple and inexpensive a remedy can be
accessed by providing real case studies, and by giving brief gist of the arguments and
the judgments in common man’s language.1
5.1. Defect in Goods
1 Rajyalakshmi Rao, Consumer is King, (New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co’. 2009) pp 9-10.
144
Under Indian jurisprudence, a defect is understood as a fault,
imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or
standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time
being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the
trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.2
Illustrative Case Laws
In Solitaire India Ltd. v D.A. Mohan Kumar,3 in the purchase of a
television with two-year warranty period, the purchaser was not allowed to
claim free replacement of picture tube after the expiry of warranty period.
only 30% discount on the replacement cost was allowed.
In Arunodaya v Mehata Computers, 4 The computer supplied was not
in accordance with the specifications spelled out in the quotation, yet the price
indicated in the quotation was charged. The computer was taken away for up
gradation but not returned. The complainant was using desk top printing for
livelihood with no outside help. Thus he was in the category of a consumer.
He was allowed to recover the price paid with interest.
In Statelec Power Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v National Research
Development Corporation of India, 5 The complainant had purchased a UPS
(Uninterrupted Power Supply) from the appellant which was defective.
The supplier encashed the cheque given for annual maintenance but UPS was
not repaired, making out the case for deficiency in service. The state
2 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sec. 2(f). 3 (1992) 1 CPJ 177 4 (2003) 2 CPJ 87 (NC) 5 (2002) 3 CPJ 254 (NC)
145
commission held that the supplier liable to refund the price less battery cost,
with interest @22% p.a. and compensation of 50,000. The National
commission on appeal reduced the interest rate to 12% p.a. and deleted the
award of compensation also.
In Hindustan Motors Ltd. v Malwa Engg. Corpn.,6 complainant
purchased a new car fitted with air conditioner which was defective and
defects were not removed even on repairs from time to time, the State
Commission directed the appellant to change the parts and pay Rs. 50,000 as
compensation to the respondent – complainant. The order was upheld by the
National Commission.
In Quilon Radio Service v P.T. Mathew, 7 the fridge supplied to the
consumer went of order after three months. It was handed over for repairs
and was returned to the buyer after three months, but had no cooling effect. It
was again handed over for repairs and was retuned back after two months. It
started making noise. It was subjected to further repairs for four months but
even then it would not work. The district forum recorded a finding of
manufacturing defect. The dealer did not deny, nor asked for an opportunity
to adduce evidence. His appeal against the judgement was rejected. The
manufacturer was liable. His contention that he came to know about the
matter only on recovery notice from the district forum and, therefore, had no
proper opportunity was not accepted.
5.2.1. Various Deficiencies in Service
6 (2003) 3 CPJ 362 (NC) 7 (1995) 1 CPJ 411 Ker.
146
5.2.1.1. Deficiency in Telephone Service
Section 2 (g) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines the term
"deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the
quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be
maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been
undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or
otherwise in relation to any service.
Meaning of various terms used to signify deficiency
Inadequate – Insufficient, short of what is required (Chambers
Twentieth century Dictionary).
Shortcoming – Act of coming or falling short, neglect of, or failure in
duty defect (Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary).
Fault – Negligence, an error or defect in judgment or of conduct, any
deviation from prudence, duty or rectitude, any short coming, or neglect of
care or performance resulting from in attention, incapacity or perversity,
wrong tendency, course or act, bad faith mismanagement, neglect of duty,
breach of duty, imposed by law or contract an act to which blame, censure,
impropriety, shortcoming or culpability attach wrongful act, omission or
breach.
Imperfection – quality of being incomplete or faulty8
‘Service’ has been defined as “service of any description which is made
8 S. M. Dugar, Commentary on Consumer Protection Law, Vol. 2. 4th Ed. (Nagpur: Wadhwa and Company, 2006) p 1140.
147
available to potential users”. Some of the most important services to the
citizen, such as banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of
electrical or other energy, boarding or lodging or both, housing construction,
entertainment, amusement, or the purveying of news or other information
have been expressly included in this definition.9
5.2.1. Various Kinds of Deficiency in Service
5.2.1.1. Deficiency in Telephone Service:
In Telecom District Engineer, Dharmasala v Prananath Mahajan, 10 on a
complaint about telephone billing, the department kept the meter under
observation and found no mechanical factor responsible for abnormally
excessive spurt in local calls and there was no circumstantial evidence to
probablise any collusion of P&T staff with third parties, the decision of the
district forum cancelling the excess part of the bill was set aside.
5.2.1.2. Deficiency in Insurance Service
In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v Buldev,11 A show-room, which had
bakery items, stationary and allied goods and also furniture, was insured
against theft, fire and flood. The stack was washed of in a flood. The insurer
raised the continence that the flood risk was excluded by a hand written
endorsement on the proposal form. But this point was not pressed in the
difference statement. The damaged goods were destroyed by the municipality
and a certificate to that effect was issued, the insurer was held liable. The
award of compensation for this location and loss of business and mental
9 Sec. 2 (1) (o) of the C.P. Act, 1986. 10 (1993) CCJ 552 (NC) 11 (2003) 2 CPJ 109 (NC)
148
agony was struck out in appeal.
In oven Rice Trading Company v United India Insurance Company Ltd, 12
Where the insurance claim of the complaint against loss of the paddy and husk
was partially allowed by the insurance company and that too after two year of
the claim. The State Commission held the complainant to be a consumer and
held the delay in settling the claim to be deficiency in service and also held that
repudiation of claim for husk was not justified. The insurance company was
directed to pay the amount of loss as well as interest at 18% p.a. which was
reduced by the national commission appealed to 12% p.a.
5.2.1.4. Deficiency in Medical Service
In Ponam Verma v Aswin Patel, 13 Supreme Court held that a diploma
holder homoeopathy medicine and surgery (DHMS) is under statutory duty
to practice in homoeopathy and that he should not enter the field of any other
system of medicine like allopathic. In instant case the homoeopathy doctor
administrated allopathic medicine without getting any pathological test done
and caused death of the patient. The Court held that since the law required
him to practice in homeopathic only, he was under a statutory duty not to
enter the field of any other system of the medicine has, admittedly, he was not
qualified in other system such as allopathic, to be precise. He
trespassed into a prohibited field and was liable to be prosecuted under
section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. A person who does not
have knowledge of a particular system of medicine but practices in that
12 (2002) CPJ 34 (NC) 13 (1996) 4 SCC 332 (NC)
149
system is a quack and a mere pretender to medical knowledge or skill, or to
put it differently, a charalatar. His conduct amounted to actionable negligence
particularly as the duty of care.
In Corporation Bank v Naveen J. Shah, 14 in the instant case, the court
confirmed the award of a compensation of Rs. 12.5 lakh to the minor child
and Rs. 5 lakh to the parents by the national commission, as the child suffered
irritable brain damages due to negligence of Doctors. Where the respondent
party act in accordance with the agreement with the complainant but the
complainant sustains loss due to some of governmental in action, the
respondent party's service cannot be held to be deficient.
5.2.1.5. Deficiency in Transport Service
The carriage of goods or passengers by airlines, railways, buses, taxies,
trucks and autos is a service under the Act in fact transport is included in the
definition of service under section 2(1)(o). Thus any kind of deficiency
pertaining to the said services would be a deficiency in service.
In Union of India v Q.S. Shipchandler, 15 the Bombay High Court held
that the grievance about fares charged by railways for A.C. Chair-cars etc. has
to be decided by the railway rates tribunal and not by the consumer’s
disputes redressal agencies. Selling defective car as a brand new car, and not
taking any action to get the defects rectified, after the same were brought to
the notice of seller, amount to failure in service.
14 (2000) 2 SCC 628 15 (2003) 1 AIC 463 (Bomb. HC)
150
In Unique Traders v France Air Pvt. Ltd. 16 when a confirmed ticket is
issued in favour of a person by Airways Authorities, failure to provide him a
seat in the flight when he reports himself at the airport in time would be
negligence on the part of the Airways Authorities and therefore it would be a
clear case of deficiency in service under the act.
5.2.1.6. Deficiency in Courier Service
The most common complaint against courier services/companies is that
they do not delivery the parcels within time or that the contents of the parcels
are missing, thus where a courier accepted a parcel to deliver it to the
addressee.
In K.S. Venkataramann & Co. Ltd. v Overnight Express Pvt. Ltd. 17
by the stipulated time as per the direction of the sender and also received the
charges, therefore, but failed to deliver it by the stipulated time it has been
held to be a deficiency in service.
In Consumer Education and Research Society v Skypak Couriers, 18 the
complaint was made on behalf of Mr. M.A. Khan Textile Technologist who
was selected as a Jackurard and Installation Manager at Logus, Nigeria.
Before joining at Nigeria, training programme was organised for him by his
new employer, at Zurich Switzerland and later in Germany. On his
instructions, Mona Travels, Delhi, sent him air ticket, passport, Swiss and
Nigerian Visas, testimonials. etc. to Ahmadabad through the opposite party.
The document were lost and never reached Ahmadabad. The Gujarat State
16 (1996) II CPR 313 (Raj. CDRC) 17 (1992) 1 CPR 98 (Tamil Nadu CDRC) 18 (1991) 1 CPR 362 (NCDRC)
151
Commission held that the services rendered by the opposite party were
deficient and ordered to pay compensation for loss of feature prospectus and
expenses incurred for obtaining duplicate documents.
5.2.1.7. Deficiency in Postal Service
In Post Master General, Tamil Nadu v Calvin Jocob,19 the complainant
had sent through his son 267 invitation cards Rs. 267 in cash to be franked and
posted. The counter clerk of the post office had not posted the cards which he
received with cash on the bank of uncontroverted evidence consisting of the
affidavit of the complainant and the supporting letters as many as 47 invites, it
was proved that cards were never posted it was argued on behalf of the Post
Master General that the Complainant was not entitled to any compensation by
reason of Sec. 6 of the Post Office Act. The national commission turned down the
argument and held that the care was not covered u/s 6 of the Act. For the reason
that was not a care where a postal article which had been dully posted had been
lost was a delay in its delivery or damage to it. On the other hand this was a case
where on article which had been entrusted to the counter clerk for being franked
and dispatched by post was not post at all. The national commission, therefore,
awarded compensation of Rs. 13767/- consisting of Rs. 500/- as the value of the
cards, Rs. 367/- being the amount of postage interested to the counter clerk, Rs.
3000/- on the ground of loss caused by the wastage of the Food, and Rs. 10000/-
as compensation for the mental pain and agony caused to the amount.
5.2.1.8. Deficiency in Educational Service
19 (1994) III CPJ 85 (NCDRC)
152
In Sridharn Nair v Registrar, the University of Kerala, 20 the result of
examination of the complainant declared by the university was found to be
erroneous and incorrect. The University pledged that it was due to over sight
and the mistake had been promptly rectified. The Harayana State
Commission held that whenever the University defaults from its primal duty
of care in this context, the examinees could clearly be entitled to compensation
under the Act. For the deficiency in the services rendered and the commission
thus, awarded compensation of Rs. 500/- to the complainant.
5.2.1.9. Deficiency in Housing Service
In Ameer Singh v Delhi Development Authority, 21 the complainant was
allotted a plot by DDA and he paid its full price. The possession of the plot was
not delivered to him, as the same plot was allotted to the some one else.
However, the complainant was allotted another plot after two years in the same
locality. The Delhi State Commission held that if on account of mistake on the
part of the officials and DDA the complainant could not be delivered possession
of the plot allotted to him than complainant is not liable to pay the enhanced
price of the other plot allotted to him later. The commission further ordered that
the complainant was also entitled to compensation on account of delayed
delivery of the plot at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount of the deposited
by him initially till the later plot was allotted.
5.2.1.10. Deficiency in Banking Service
20 (1993) 1 CPR 274 (Haryana, CDRC) 21 (1993) 1 CPR 541 (Delhi, CDRC)
153
In N. Ravindran Nair v. State Bank of India, 22 the complainant had
remitted sum of Rs. 98000/- at State Bank of India, Travancore, Vengarnur
Branch and produced a demand draft for the said amount payable at Surat.
He presented the draft at the State Bank of India, Surat only to be issued a
dishonoured memo. The Bank refused to encash the draft as the specimen
signatory member of one of the two officials of the issued branch was missing.
As a result the complainant was stranded in the distant place peniles and
could not purchase textile. It was argued by the bank that the dishonour was
not done with malafide intention but as per the instructions and guidelines of
Reserve Bank of India. The Kerala State Commission observed that there was
no suspicion against the status of the complainant and he was not responsible
in any way. The Commission held that the draft was dishonoured due to the
fault of the Bank and thus the services rendered by the bank were deficient.
The Commission ordered the bank to pay Rs. 19500/- as
compensation to the complainant for inconvenience and mental agony.
5.2.1.11. Deficiency in Electricity Supply
In P. Jagadeesan v Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 23 the electric supply
line to the petitioner’s premises had been in existence for ten years prior to the
date of disconnection without any objection from any quarter. The
electric supply was disconnected by the electricity board on the ground that it
was drown across the road through which a procession of the chief minister
was to pass and it constituted on obstruction to the free movement of the chief
22 (1991) II CPJ 258 (Ker. CDRC) 23 (1998) 1 CPJ (NCDRC)
154
minister convey. But no steps were taken by the electricity board to reconnect
the line even after the date of the procession was over. The National
Commission held that the disconnection had been made only for meeting the
temporary need for enabling the chief ministers convey to pass along the road
without any obstruction by the said line and in such a situation, it is the
obligatory on the part of the electricity board to reconnect the said line and
the restore the supply of electricity to the complainant immediately after the
temporary need was served. Thus, the failure on the part of the electricity
board to reconnect the electric supply clearly constitutes deficiency in service.
5.3.1. Specific Categories of Unfair Trade Practice
Here some categories of the UTP have been analysed.
5.3.1.1. False or Misleading Representation
The first category of unfair trade practice has been laid down in clause
(1) of Section 2(1)(r) which relates to the practice of making false or
misleading representation. All the sub-clauses (i) to (x) of this provision have
a common element of factum of representation which must be false or
misleading.
False means which is not true. The expression ‘falsely represents’ used
in section 36A (1) indicates that the representation is contrary to facts. It is
stated in Halsbury’s Laws of England, that a representation, will be deemed
to be false, if it is false in substance and in fact, and the test by which the
representation is to be judged is to see whether the discrepancy between the
fact as represented and the actual fact is such as would be considered material
155
by a reasonable represented.
In Lakhanpal National Ltd. v MRTP Commission,24 another way of
stating the rule is to say that substantial falsity is, on the one hand necessary,
and, on the other, adequate to establish a misrepresentation and that where
the entire representation is a faithful picture or transcript of the essential facts,
no falsity is established, and even though there may have been any number of
in accuracies in unimportant details conversely, if the general impression
conveyed is false, the most functions and scrupulous accuracy in immaterial
minute will not render the representation true.
The term misleading means capable of leading into error, there is an
obligation on the seller that if he advertises or otherwise represents, he must
speak the truth. This obligation also requires that the representation must
avoid half-truths. Sometimes, a statement may be literally true and yet it may
be false or misleading. An advertisement may be misleading because things
are omitted that should be said or because advertisements are composed or
purposefully printed in such a way as to mislead.25
5.3.1.2. Bait Advertising and Bargain Price
The second category is in clause (2) of Section 2(1)(r) of unfair trade
practice includes the publication of an advertisement in a news paper or
otherwise by which goods or services are offered at a bargain price when in
fact this is not the intention or they are not intended to be offered at that price
for a reasonable period or reasonable quantity.
24 (2002) 3 CPJ 246 (NC) 25 V. K. Agarwal, Consumer Protection Law and Practice, 5th Ed. (New Delhi: B.L.H. Publishers’ Distributors Pvt. Ltd. 2009) p 304.
156
The bait advertisement is a false or misleading representation where by
the goods for services are offered at attractive bargaining price, when in
reality the advertiser knows that the people would have very little chance of
obtaining supplies at that price.
'Bargain Price' means a price that a person who reads, hears or sees the
advertisement, would reasonably understand to be a bargain price having
regard to the price at which the product advertised or like product are
ordinarily sold. Thus, an advertisement which makes no specific claim to be
offering a reduced or bargain price may yet be caught if price stated is on
which a member of the public could reasonably understand to be a bargain
price because it is lower than price normally charged for the similar goods or
services.
In Consumer Unity and Trust Society v Balkrishna Khurana,26 the
respondent was publishing the advertisement in the news papers offering the
sale of hosiery goods are export quality at ridiculously low rates.
In order to tempt the intending buyers to flock to his business premises, the
sales were said to remain in operation only for an unreasonably short period
2/3 days. The MRTP Commission held that it to be an unfair trade practice
prejudicial to public interest.
5.3.1.2. Offering Gifts and Prizes and Conducting Promotional Contests
The third category is in clause (3) of Section 2(1)(r) of unfair trade
practice includes in its fold the offering of any gifts, prizes or other items
26 (1989) 66 Comp. Case, 519 (SC)
157
along with the goods when the real intention is different or giving the
impression that something is being offered free of price along with the goods
when in fact the price is wholly or partly covered by the price of the article
sold, or some prizes are offered to the buyers by the conduct of some lottery
or chance game when the real aim is promotion of sales or business.
Frequently, there are offers of gifts and prizes from various business
firms in order to attract the customer but there is no ultimate benefit to him
since these gifts and prizes are only in name and the intention is not of giving
any prizes or gift to the customer but to attract him to buy the goods not
needed by him. In a country like India, where majority of the people cannot
afford to meet the basic necessities of life, some items of luxury and
extravagance are easily sold out by the manufacturers through tactics like
offering of gifts or prizes, bait advertising, misleading advertising, etc.
Some business concerns indulge in practices in the name of promotional
contests to attract customers to their products or premises. The innocent and
ignorant customers fall an easy prey to the concealed cheating by these
concerns in the name of promotional contests like “Spot the Star” contest.27
5.3.1.4. Sale of substandard or underweight goods
The fourth category is in clause (4) of Section 2(1)(r) of unfair trade
practice includes cases where goods are sold for use or likely use by
consumers, the seller knowing or having reason to believe that they do not
comply with standards prescribed by some competent Authority.
27 Supra Note 25, pp. 304-305
158
Sale of sub-standard or post warranty service or sale of underweight
packets of goods have been held by State as well as National Commission as
an unfair trade practice under Section 2 (i)(r) of the Act.
One of the most important right available to the consumers is to assure
that goods purchased will be reasonably safe in use. There is an urgent need
for effective action in the field of consumer product safety. Increasing
affluence and the increasing range of complex nature of products have led to
the prevalent situation in which unsafe products may cause death or serious
injury. Some times the danger arises from defective design, or substandard
material or poor workmanship.
5.3.1.5. Hoarding, Destruction or Refusal
The fifth category is in clause (5) of Section 2(1) (r) of unfair trade
practice includes cases of hoarding, destruction of or refusal to sell, goods or
services. Clause (5) says that a practice will be unfair if it involves hoarding or
destruction of goods, or refusal to sell the goods or to provide any services if
such conduct is intended to raise or has the effect of raising the cost of those
or other similar goods or services.28
5.3.1.6. Spurious Goods, Deceptive Practices
The Amendment Act, 2002 inserted a new sub-clause (6) in section 2(1)
(r) of the Act to further enlarge the scope of the definition of ‘unfair trade
practice’ to include manufacture of spurious goods or to offer such goods for
sale. Adoption of deceptive practices in the provision of services, according to
28 Avtar Singh, Law of Consumer Protection: Principles and Practice, 4th Ed. (Lucknow: Eastern Book Co., 2009) pp 191-192.
159
this provision, manufacture of spurious goods or offering such goods for sale
or adopting deceptive practices in the provision of services will amount to an
unfair trade practice. Clause(oo) of the section 2(1) of the act defines spurious
goods and services to mean such goods and services which are claimed to be
genuine but they are not actually so.
5.4. Restrictive Trade Practice
The Amendment Act, 2002 has substituted a new definition of
‘restrictive trade practice’ in the Consumer protection Act. The definition
given in Consumer Protection Act is narrower as compared to the definition
given under the MRTP Act. The definition under the MRTP Act is wider,
exhaustive and result oriented.
Clause (nnn) of section 2(1) of the Act defines the concept of ‘restrictive
trade practice’ to mean a trade practice which tends to bring about
manipulation of price or its conditions of delivery or to affect flow of supplies
in the market relating to goods or services in such a manner as to impose on
the consumers unjustified costs or restrictions and shall include;
(a) delay beyond the period agreed to by a trader in supply of such goods
or in providing the services which has led or is likely to lead to rise in
the price;
(b) any trade practice which requires a consumer to buy, hire or avail of
any goods or, as the case may be, services as condition precedent to
buying, hiring or availing of other goods or services.
The aforesaid definition clearly reveals a trade practice will be a
restrictive trade practice if it-
160
i) tends to bring about manipulation of price or conditions of
delivery; or
ii) to affect flow of supplies in the market relating to goods or services
in such a manner as to impose on the consumer unjustified costs or
restrictions.
In addition to the general definition, certain specific trade practices
stipulated in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (nnn) of section 2(1) have been
made per se restrictive trade practices. Thus, any delay beyond the agreed
period by a trader in supply of goods or in providing the service which has
led or is likely to lead to rise in the price will fall within the ambit of
restrictive trade practice. Similarly, a trade practice of tie-up sale will also be a
restrictive trade practice. The provision of restrictive trade practice of tie-up
sale was existing even prior to 2002 amendment.
The new definition given in clause (nnn) by the Amendment Act, 2002
has further widened the scope of the concept of ‘restrictive trade practice’. The
legislation intention is clear that it expands the meaning of restrictive trade
practice by extending it to manipulation of price or conditions of delivery or flow
of supplies leading to unjustified costs or restrictions. The two inclusive sub-
clauses (a) and (b) have widened its scope but not exhausting what is being
covered by the earlier part of the definition.29
5.5. Findings of the District Forum. —
(1) If, after the proceeding conducted under section 13, the District Forum is
29 S. S. Gulshan, Consumer Protection and Satisfaction: Legal and Managerial Dimension (New Delhi: Wiley Eastern Ltd., and Age International Ltd., 1995), pp. 4-5.
161
satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects
specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the
complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite
party directing him to do one or more of the following things, namely:—
(a) to remove the defect pointed out by the appropriate laboratory from
the goods in question;
(b) to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall
be free from any defect;
(c) to return to the complainant the price, or, as the case may be, the
charges paid by the complainant;
(d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the
consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the
negligence of the opposite party. Provided that the District Forum shall
have the power to grant punitive damages in such circumstances as it
deems fit;
(e) to remove the defects in goods or deficiencies in the services in
question;
(f) to discontinue the unfair trade practice or the restrictive trade practice
or not to repeat it;
(g) not to offer the hazardous goods for sale;
(h) to withdraw the hazardous goods from being offered for sale;
(i) (ha)to cease manufacture of hazardous goods and to desist from
offering services which are hazardous in nature;
162
(hb) to pay such sum as may be determined by it if it is of the opinion
that loss or injury has been suffered by a large number of consumers
who are not identifiable conveniently:
Provided that the minimum amount of sum so payable shall not be less
than five per cent of the value of such defective goods sold or service
provided, as the case may be, to such consumers:
Provided further that the amount so obtained shall be credited in
favour of such person and utilized in such manner as may be prescribed;
(hc) to issue corrective advertisement to neutralize the effect of misleading
advertisement at the cost of the opposite party responsible for issuing such
misleading advertisement;
(i) to provide for adequate costs to parties.
(2) Every proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) shall be conducted by the
President of the District Forum and at least one member thereof sitting
together:
Provided that where a member, for any reason, is unable to conduct a
proceeding till it is completed, the President and the other member shall
continue the proceeding from the stage at which it was last heard by the
previous member.
(2A) Every order made by the District Forum under sub-section (1) shall be
signed by its President and the member or members who conducted the
proceeding:
163
Provided that where the proceeding is conducted by the President and
one member and they differ on any point or points, they shall state the point
or points on which they differ and refer the same to the other member for
hearing on such point or points and the opinion of the majority shall be the
order of the District Forum.
(3) Subject to the foregoing provisions, the procedure relating to the conduct
of the meetings of the District Forum, its sittings and other matters shall be
such as may be prescribed by the State Government.
It may be noted that prior to the 1993-amendments, the District Forum
was having power to do one or more of the things mentioned in clauses (a) to
(d). It was felt that these powers were not enough to provide adequate relief
to the aggrieved consumer. There was no specific power to award costs to the
complainant in deserving cases. There was no provision to prevent the sale of
goods likely to endanger the life or health of public. Similarly, there was no
power to pass cease and desist order against unfair trade practice. To remove
these difficulties, the consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 1993 inserted
clauses (e) to (i) in section 14(1) of the Act. These clauses confer additional
powers on the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies to order for removal of
deficiencies from the services, not to offer the hazardous goods for sale, to
withdraw the hazardous goods from being offered for sale, to award costs to
the parties, and to pass ‘cease and desist’ order against any unfair or
restrictive trade practice.
The amendment Act, 2002 has inserted clauses (ha), (hb), and (hc) in
164
section 14(1) of the Act. These clauses further empower the District Forum to
issue orders directing the opposite party, inter alia, to cease to manufacture of
hazardous goods and desist from offering services which are hazardous in
nature; to pay such sum not less than five per cent of the value of defective goods
sold or services provided where loss or injury has been suffered by a large
number of consumers who are not conveniently identifiable; and to issue
corrective advertisement to neutralize the effect of misleading advertisement at
the cost of the opposite party responsible for issuing such misleading
advertisement. A proviso, to clause (d) of section 14 (1) has also been inserted by
the 2002- amendment, which confers additional power to District Forum to grant
punitive damages in such circumstances as it deems fit.
5.5.1. Remedies available to Consumers:-
5.5.1.1. Removal of defects
Where the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects
pointed out by the appropriate laboratory, the District Forum can issue an
order to the opposite party to remove the defect from the goods in question.
Where the complainant alleges such a defect in the goods which cannot be
determined by any analysis or test, the Forum should decide the complaint on
the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the respective parties and pass
necessary order under section 14 of the Act.
5.5.1.2. Replacement of Goods
Clause (b) of section 14 (1) provides that where the District Forum
finds that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects
165
specified in the complaint, it may direct the opposite party to replace the
goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any
defect. It is not clear when the Forum can order for the removal of defects
under clause (a) of section 14 (1) or when it can ask for the replacement of
goods under clause (b) of the same section. It appears that it has been left to
the discretion of the Forum. But the discretion must be exercised judiciously
keeping in view the nature of the defect, the nature of goods, the use of the
goods and other relevant facts and circumstances of the case.
For example, where it is not possible to remove the defect properly, or
the goods are not likely to give satisfactory performance even after the
removal of the defect, the forum may order the replacement of the goods with
new goods. Similarly, where a product suffers from a major manufacturing
defect, the forum shall order for replacement of that product.30
In Abhay Kumar Panda v Bajaj Auto Ltd., 31 The complainant
purchased a Bajaj Auto Trailer manufactured by the respondent. The vehicle
suffered from a major structural manufacturing defect. The National
Commission observed that the manufacturer should not have sold initially a
product which suffered from a major manufacturing defect. This should have
been rejected or condemned at the stage of quality control examination and
testing, and if it escaped defective at these stages, the particular product
should have been with drawn from the market or the consumer voluntarily.
The commission, therefore, ordered, inter alia that the respondent should
30 CPJ ) I (1992 88 (NCRDC) 31 CPJ II (1991) 398 (Ker. CDRC)
166
replace the vehicle by a new auto trailer of the identical specification after
verification by testing and inception that it was free from defects with fresh
usual warranty.
In Dyna Vision Ltd. v Sudhakar Kamath32 the complainant purchased a
Dynora Colour Television and it was discovered after three years of use that
the original Philips picture tube which the set was supposed to contain had
been replaced by an old Korean picture tube. The Kerala State Commission
ordered that the producer should fit a new picture tube and also to pay Rs.
2,000 by way of compensation for inconvenience.
In Issoc Mathew v Maruti Udyog Ltd.33 a car which was damaged and
was subsequently repaired and supplied to the complainant as a new car. The
Kerala State Commission ordered that the car be replaced with a new car and
also awarded compensation to the complainant for the inconvenience.
5.5.1.3. Return of Price
Under clause (c) of section 14 (1) of the Act if the District Forum finds
that the goods or services complained against suffer from any defect or
deficiency specified in the complaint it may
order the opposite party to return to the complainant the price, or the charges
paid by the complainant.
In Maheshwari Parikh v Chudasma Footwear.34 Once it is proved that
the goods were not of the standard quality and defective and required to be
returned to the seller, the customer is entitled to return of full price.
32 CPJ II (1991) 75 (Ker. CDRC) 33CPR I (1991) 105 (Guj. CDRC) 34 CPR I (1992) 133 (Kant. CDRC)
167
In Bhamy Shenoy v KSRTC, 35 The complainant was a passenger who
could not be conversed to his destination owing to road obstruction.
The State Commission ordered the bus operator to refund his ticket money to
and pro.
The provision of clause(c) of the section 14 (1) of the Act does not
expressly provide whether the Forum can also order the return of the price
charged in excess of the price ‘fixed’ by any authority or manufacturer.
It seems that this power may be exercised implicitly.
In Bharath Tractors v Ramachandra Pandey,36 the complainant had
purchased a tractor from the appellant and was charged excess price having
regard to the price fixed by the manufacturer. The State Commission ordered
the refund of the excess amount with 16% interest to the complainant. The
National Commission upheld the order of the State Commission and
dismissed the appeal.
5.5.1.4. Compensation for Loss or Injury
Under clause (d) of section 14 (1) of the Act if the District Forum is
satisfied that the goods or the services complained against suffer from any
defect or deficiency specified in the complaint, it may order the opposite party
directing him to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation
to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by him due to the negligence
of the opposite party.
It is pertinent to note that the Forum may award compensation only if
35 CPJ ) I (1991 152 (NCRDC) 36 CPR I (1996) 60 (NCRDC)
168
two conditions are satisfied:
i) The consumer must have suffered some loss or injury; and
ii) The loss or injury must have been caused due to the negligence of the
opposite party.
Further, according to the proviso to clause (d) of section 14(1) inserted
by the 2002 amendment the District – Forum shall have the power to grant
punitive damages in such circumstances as it deems fit.
Negligence is the breach of a duty to take care which results in damage
to the plaintiff. It is the absence of such care, skill and diligence in rendering
the service as is expected of or required of a reasonable man.
In R.R. Gopal v Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 37 It is
committing to do something that a reasonable man would not do. It is want
proper care or attention in rendering the service from judged from the
standards of performance by reasonable man.
Negligence has many manifestations - it may be active negligence,
collateral negligence, comparative negligence, concurring negligence,
continued negligence, criminal negligence, gross negligence, hazardous
negligence, active and passive negligence, will full or reckless negligence or
negligence per se, which is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as under:
Negligence Per se: conduct, whether of action or omission, which may
be declared and treated as negligence without any argument or proof as to the
particular surrounding circumstance either because it is in violation of a
37 CPJ I (1995) (SC)
169
statute or valid Municipal Ordinance, or because it is so palpably opposed to
the dictates of common prudence that it can be said without hesitation or
doubt that no careful person would have been guilty of it. As a general rule,
the violation of a public duty, enjoyed by law for the protection of person or
property, so constitutes.
The Supreme Court in Consumer Unity & Trust Society, Jaipur v
The Chairman and Managing Director,38 Bank of Baroda, Calcutta & Another,
thus has held that where the loss of service was due to illegal strike by the
Bank employees, the bank has not been negligent in discharge of its duties.
The Court observed that even if any loss or damage was caused to any
depositor but it was not caused due to negligence of the Bank then no claim of
damages under the consumer protection Act was maintainable.
5.5.1.5. To Remove the Defects in Goods or Deficiencies in Service
Clause (e) of section 14 (1) provides that where the Districts Forum
finds that the goods or the services complained against suffer from any defect
or deficiency as the case may be, it may direct the opposite party to remove
the defect or deficiency in question. This provision has been inserted by the
Amendment Act 1993. Prior to the amendments, there was no specific power
to this effect. But now the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies have the
power to order for removal of defects in goods or deficiencies in the services
in question.
5.5.1.6. Discontinuance of any unfair or restrictive trade practice
38 Supra Note 25, pp. 477.
170
Clause (f) in section 14 (1) has been inserted by the Consumer
Protection (Amendment) Act, 1993. According to this provision, the District
Forum may direct the opposite party to discontinue the unfair trade practice
or the restrictive trade practice or not to repeat it. It means that the practice
shall not only be discontinued forthwith but shall also not be repeated in
future.
5.5.1.7. Stop offering hazardous goods
Prior to the 1993 amendments, there was no provision in the Act to
prevent the sale of goods likely to endanger the life or health of public.
To remove this difficulty, the Amendment Act, 1993 inserted clause (g) in
section 14 (1) of the Act, which provides that the District Forum may by order
direct the opposite party not to offer the hazardous goods for sale. It
may be noted that the term hazardous goods has not been defined in the Act
and therefore, the District Forum, the State Commission and the national
Commission may face difficulty while invoking clause (g) of section 14 (1) of
the Act. However, it appears that it would include those goods which are
likely to endanger the life, health or property of public.
5.5.1.8. To withdraw hazardous goods
Under clause (h) of section 14 (1) of the Act, the District Forum may
direct the opposite party to withdraw the hazardous goods from being
offered for sale. Prior to the 1993 amendments, there was no such power
conferred upon the District Forum.
171
The amendment act, 1993 has conferred this additional power to the
district forum with a view to protect the public in general, and consumer in
particular from these goods which are to likely to endanger the life or health
of public.
5.5.1.9. To cease manufacture of hazardous goods
Clause (ha) in section 14 (1) has been inserted by the Amendment Act,
2002. Under this clause, the District Forum may issue orders directing the
opposite party to cease manufacture of hazardous goods and to desist from
offering services which are hazardous in nature.
Prior to 2002 amendments the powers of the district forum were
confined, inter alia, to pass order not to after the goods for sale or to withdraw
the hazards goods, from being offered for sale but now the power extends to
cease manufacture of hazards goods and to desist from offering services
which are hazards in nature, these provisions will provide better protection to
the consumers against hazards goods.
5.5.1.10. To pay for loss or injury suffered by consumers not identifiable
Clause (hb) inserted in section 14 (1) by the Amendment Act, 2002,
provides that District Forum may direct the opposite party to pay such sum as
may be determined by it if it is of the opinion that loss or injury has been
suffered by a large number of consumers who are not identifiable
conveniently, however, the minimum amount of sum so payable shall not be
less than five percent of the value of the such defective goods sold or services
provided, as the care may be, to such consumers. Further, the amount so
172
obtained shall be credited in favour of such person and utilised in such
manner as may be prescribed.
5.5.1.11. To issue Corrective Advertisement
The Amendment Act, 2002 has inserted a new clause (hc) in section 14
(1) of the Act. According to this clause, the District Forum may direct the
opposite party to issue corrective advertisement to neutralize the effect of
misleading advertisement at the cost of the opposite party responsible for
issuing such misleading advertisement.
5.5.1.12. To provide Adequate Costs to Parties.
Prior to the 1993 amendments, there was no specific power with the
District Forum to award the costs to complainants in deserving cases.
The Amendment Act, 1993 inserted clause (i) in section 14(1) of the Act, which
provides that the District Forum may award the adequate costs to parties.
This is an important clause which has been inserted in section 14(1) to enable
the District Consumer Forum to award costs to the parties.
5.6. Some Important Decided Case Laws of District Consumer Forum,
Bellary
1. Sri. B. Basvaraj v. The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance
Company Ltd. Bellary. 39
39 Source: Records of CDRF, Bellary the Complaint was disposed on 26/11/2011
173
The complaint was filed by the Basavaraj against the respondent u/s 12
of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for claiming insurance money for the
deficiency of service of the respondent ordered for Rs. 1000/- towards cost of
proceedings.
The complaint in brief is that the complainant is the owner of the
vehicle bearing Regn. No. KA. 34/M-8427 which was insured with the
respondent's insurance company valid from 18.03.2010 to 17.03.2011 when the
complainant and his family members while proceeding to Siridi Sai Baba
Dhaba, on the way they parked their vehicle near Dhaba to have lunch and
after having lunch when they come to the spot where the vehicle was parked
it was found that some unknown lorry came in reverse direction and hit the
complainant's vehicle due to which the front portion of the complainant’s
vehicle was severely damaged. This matter was intimated to the respondent’s
insurance company on 26.01.2011 and a claim was made for the damage
caused to the complainant's vehicle and left the vehicle for repair at D.S.K.
Toyota Motor Ltd. Sambhapur, Kolhapur District who issued the estimation
of the cost of the repair which was Rs. 2,11,053/-. After repair the said vehicle
was delivered to the complainant. The complainant had spent Rs.
1,68,160/- for the repair of his vehicle. In the claim form the complainant by
oversight had mentioned the date of the accident as on 28.01.2011 instead of
26.01.2011. The said mistake was not intentional one, the respondent's
insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant as per
endorsement dated: 26.11.2011. Hence the complaint for total compensation of
174
Rs. 1,68,160/-.
The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
The complainant is entitled to recover sum of Rs. 1,68,160/- with interest @6%
p.a. from the date of the complaint i.e., 01.10.2011 till realisation, from the
respondent. The complainant is also entitled to recover sum of Rs.1000/-
towards cost of the proceedings from the respondent. The respondent is
directed to the pay the entire amount ordered to the complainant, within two
months from the date of this order.
2. Sri M. Srinivasulu v. The Post Master, Head Post Office, Bellary. 40
The complaint was filed by Srinivasulu against the respondent
(121/2013), u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for claming
Rs. 80,000/- money for deficiency in postal service of the respondents.
The complaint in brief is that the complainant intending to deposit it
with the respondent Rs. 80,000/- to his SB Account asked his wife give the
same to G. Manikappa who is a small savings agent to remit it and
accordingly, she gave one bundle of currency notes to him which had actually
Rs. 90,000/- in it. On coming to know about that said mistake the same was
informed to the said agent who in turn informed it to officials of the
respondent, the complainant requested by filing an application to the that
effect on 29.09.2012 to the respondent to refund Rs. 10,000/- paid in execs for
which replay was given stating that the matter enquired and admitting the
excess amount received in the counter, he refused to pay the same by stating
40 Source: Records of CDRF, Bellary the Complaint was disposed on 2/1/2014
175
that the said amount doesn’t pertain to the complainant. But no information is
given by the respondent as to whom that excess amount belongs to and the
said matter is being kept secret. Therefore, the complainant seeking the relief
prayed for.
The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
The complainant is entitled to recover Rs. 10,000/- with interest @6% p.a.
from 4.9.2012 till its realisation from the respondent. The complainant is also
entitled to recover Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings from the
respondent. The respondent is liable to the pay above said amount to the
complainant within two months from the date the order.
3. M/S Rajyog Fashoins v Seena, ANL Parcel Service Agent, Bellary. 41
The complaint was filed by Jaisingh Raj Purohith against the
respondent u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for claiming the
compensation in deficiency in services of the respondent and also
compensation for the mental harassment and cost of the proceedings.
The complaint in brief is that the complainant is engaged in
manufacturing of readymade garments and Jaisingh Raj Purohith is
proprietor of the said firm and he is managing the affairs of the same.
On 30.8.2011 the complaint dispatched readymade garments throw the
respondents transport company with the No. 45240751/1 to their customer
Excellence Gents and Kids Wear Miryalagurda of the Nelgonda District,
Andhra Pradesh. But after few days informed to the complainant that they
41 Source: Records of CDRF, Bellary the Complaint was disposed on 27/3/2014
176
had not received the consignment sent to them throw the respondents
Transport Company. The complainant informed the same to the respondent
and issued letters to them as well as legal notice in this regard.
The respondent on receipt of the same undertook to pay the amount of the
consignment but still this day they have not paid the same. The act of the
respondents amounts to deficiency service. Therefore, the complainant
seeking relief’s as prayed for. The Consumer Forum Bellary held that the
complainant is partly allowed. The complainant is entitled to recover
Rs. 38,005/- towards value of the goods from the respondents.
The complaint is also entitled to recover some of the Rs. 1,000/- towards cost
of the proceedings from the respondents.
4. Sri. Ravindra Domal v The Principal, Bellary Educational Trust, P.U.
College, Bellary. 42
The complainant filed a complaint against the respondent u/s 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The complaint in brief is that the complainant is the permanent
resident of Bidar. He intending to admit his twin sons by name Sagar and
Sachin in the Respondent College on seeing an advertisement in the news
paper, obtained two prospectus by paying Rs. 250/- each and thereafter paid
Rs. 4000/-as provisional admission fee to the respondent on 21-05.2011 and
then got his twin sons admitted to the respondent’s Pre-University by College
paying one year total fee of Rs. 62,050/- on 15-06-2011. After
42 http://164.100, 72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/1853 1204 204 121613, 50 698 CC-22, 2012 pdf.the complaint was disposed on 18/3/14
177
admission, the complainant's sons hardly stayed in the respondent’s college
for 06 days as they are alone in the Respondent’s hostel and as they could not
reside in Bellary as its climatic conditions is not suitable to both the children,
hence both had returned to Bidar. The complaint was constrained to write a
letter to the respondent requesting to return the fee paid by him and also
issue the transfer certificate of his two sons. On receipt of the said letter, the
respondent returned the transfer certificate, but failed to return the amount
paid by the complainant. The respondent is bound to return tuition fee and
mess charges for a period of one year. Non refund of the amount by
respondent amounts to deficiency in service, hence the complainant allowed
for refund of Rs. 62,050/-towards fees paid, with interest @18p.a., and Rs.
10,000/- compensation towards mental agony and deficiency in service.
The complaint filed by the complainant is entitled to recover a sum of
Rs. 58,000/- from the respondent. The complainant also entitled to recover a
sum of Rs. 1000/-towards cost of the proceedings, from the respondent.
The respondent is directed to pay the entire amount to the complainant,
within two months from the date of this order.
5. Sri. D.S. Badrinath v The Manager, Diwakar Road Lines, Bellary. 43
The complaint was filed by Badrinatha against the respondent
(26/2014), u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for claiming
compensation for deficiency in service of the respondent and also
compensation for mental harassment and hardship undergone by the
43 Source: Records of CDRF, Bellary the Complaint was disposed on 18/3/2014
178
complainants.
Brief facts of the case of the complainant is that: the complaint
purchased four tickets from the respondents travel company on 19.12.2013 to
travel from Bellary to Hyderabad in their Bus and accordingly the
complainant and his family member travelled from Bellary to Hyderabad on
the same day. When the bus reached Shodnagar the driver instructed all the
passengers to get down there as the bus cannot go to the Hyderabad as there
was RTO checking. The complainant questioned the bus driver in this regard
and refused to get down from the bus. At that time the driver informed the
complainant that at Kachiguda office the manager will settle the issue. It was
about 4.30.am and atmosphere was very chill. Therefore, the complainant
made separate arrangement to travel from Shodnagar to Hyderabad in a taxi
by paying Rs. 3,000/- and reached Hyderabad at about 7.00 a.m. Due to the
above circumstances, the complainant suffered mental agony and loss. This
amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents travel
company. Therefore, the complainant sought for relief.
The district consumer forum has allowed the complaint filed by
complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the
respondent partly with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover sum of
Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for exchanging service, from the
respondent. The respondent liable to the pay the above said amount to the
complainant within two months from the date of order.
179
6. Sri Murali Mohan Reddy v The Proprietor Om Enterprises Bellary and
Others. 44
The complaint filed by complainant against the Respondents u/s. 12 of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The complaint in brief can be described of that on 21/5/2011 the
complainant purchased Kenster cooler under customer No.
160311060500132313 main motor No. C4 9704-C by paying Rs. 7,300/- vide
cash Bill No-7741 from the Respondent No.1 which is manufactured by the
respondent No. 2. The respondents have given one year warranty to the said
Air Cooler. The said air cooler worked for couple of days and thereafter it
failed to provide cool air and the main motor has been burst immediately
The complainant brought it to the notice of the Respondent No.1 and
requested to effect repair who replaced some part and he charged Rs. 200/-
though it was within warranty period. Once again the said cooler started
giving same problem within 15-20 days after its repair. The said air cooler
having manufacturing defect the complainant visited the respondent No. 1's
Shop requesting him to rectify the defects in the air cooler. But he neither
rectified the defects nor replaced the defective parts. The respondents are
duty bound to replace the damaged part free of cost. The respondents
postponed the same on one or other pretext, which amount to deficiency in
service on the part of the respondents. Therefore, the complainant got issued
legal Notice dated 5/3/2012 to the respondent for which the respondent
44 http://164.100, 72.12/ncdrcrep/1853 0120 7051 51835751 CC-56, 2012 pdf.the complaint was disposed on 30/6/2012
180
never replied. Hence, the complainant sought direction to the respondents to
give a new defect free air cooler of some brand or else to pay the cost of it Rs.
7,300/- and to pay Rs. 200/- towards replacement charges, Rs. 2,000/-
towards mental agony and deficiency in service.
The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
The respondents jointly and severely are directed to replace the defective
parts of the air cooler of the complainant free of cost and to pay Rs. 1,000/-
towards deficiency in service and Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings
to the complainant, within two months from the date of the order.
7. Sri. M.P. Kotresh v Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. 45
The complaint filed by the Kotresh against the respondents u/s. 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased
P3 100 Silver Colour Tab of Samsung on 19.11.2012 from the respondent
No. 2 for Rs. 19,500/-. As per the specification details, the unit consists of
16GB internal memory, external memory can be extend upto 32GM, 7
Display screen, 4000 mah inbuilt battery,1GB RAM with operating system as
android ICS. After three months of its purchase, the unit started to show
defects. The complainant through one Prabhakar got checked it-up with the
Respondent No. 2 and the defects were removed. But on 25.2.2013 when the
complainant noticed new defects, the same was sent through Prabakar to the
Respondent No. 2 and as per the instruction given the said Prabhakar has
45 Source: Records of CDRF, Bellary the Complaint was disposed on 27/3/2014
181
taken it to authorised service centre at Bellary Viz. PAAN enterprises and
reported the complaint regarding network, Bluetooth not working, touch
screens slow and the same were recorded in the network order. The unit was
serviced and returned on 01.03.13, when the complainant started using it he
noticed that the memory which was 16 GB has been reduced 4 GB, Bluetooth,
connecting is not restored. Immediately the customer service centre was
contacted on its toll free number and it was informed that when unit was
given for service on 25.2.2013 the motherboard has been replaced, it could be
the result and asked to wait for same time so that the complainant would be
informed to approached service centre at Bellary after suitable motherboard is
sent. On 19.03.2013 the complainant approached the PAAN Electronics,
Bellary. Since the unit started heating up and the same came to be rectified
immediately. When the complainant informed about the reduction of memory
status to 4 GB, it was informed that compatible mother board is not received
from the Company. Further the complainant made repeated calls to the
customer service centre and made enquiry regarding the increase of memory
status, the same is not being provided on the ground of that suitable and
compatible the motherboard is not available. Further, when the
Respondent No. 2 was approached for replacement with new unit. It was
informed that the same model is out of stock and is not in a position to replace
with new one. When the complainant asked for replacement of P3100 Model
and is prepared to pay the difference in the price. The Respondent No. 2 is not
conceding and asked to contact the company itself informed that he has
182
nothing to do with service after sale.
The District Consumer Forum, Bellary held that, the complaint filed by
the complainant is partly allowed against the Respondent No. 2 the
complainant is entitled to the recover sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards
compensation for deficiency in service, from the respondent no. 2.
The complainant is also entitled to recover sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of
the proceedings from the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 is the liable
pay the said amount to the complainant within two months from the date of
the order. The complaint filed by the complainant as against respondent No. 1
is dismissed on the grounds of the deficiency in service.
8. Mr. K. Mohan v. M/s Virgo Motors Pvt. Ltd. Authorised Dealers of
Honda Motors Cycle and Scooter, Bellary. 46
The complaint was filed by Mr. Mohan against the respondents
u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The complaint in brief is that the complainant purchased Honda
Unicorn Motor cycle from the respondent no. 2 which was manufactured by
the respondent No. 1 for Rs. 81,000/- on 16.09.2013. However, the
complainant noticed that said vehicle was not smooth and was having
hardness in driving with clutch and gear problems. The vehicle was not
having pickup in load gear even at full accelerator, on reporting the same the
technician of the respondent No. 2 stated that the vehicle being new on using
the same it will all right. On 23.9.2013 all of a sudden mechanics of the
46 Source: Records of CDRF, Bellary the Complaint was disposed on 10/2/2014
183
respondent No. 2 stated that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect and
suffers from clutch and gear system problems and they cannot assured its
smooth working even on rectification, immediately the complainant
requested the respondent No. 2 to replace the vehicle. But it was not replaced.
Due to delivery of defective vehicle the complainant suffered mental agony
and he was unable to use the vehicle. This amounted to deficiency in service
on the part of the respondents. Hence the complainant sought relief.
The District Consumer Forum held that the complaint filed by the
complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
9. Sri. Gaddam Srinivasulu v Sri. S. Abdul Rehaman and others. 47
The complainant filed the complaint against the respondents u/s 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
The complaint in brief is that the complainant went to the shop of the
respondents on 3.5.2010 and gave a 22 carat gold chain weighing 7.800 grams
along with Rs. 22,270/- towards additional 12.800 grams of the gold and Rs.
300/- towards copper to be added to make a new chain and the respondents
received the same from the complainant and gave the new chain to the
compliant on 25.5.2010. The complainant took it and kept it at his house. After
that when the complainant wearing the said chain went for a function the
hook of the chain was cut and when the complainant took it to a gold smith
for repair of the hook it was revealed that said chain is not of gold and it is a
rolled gold (Khage Bangar). Thereby, the respondents cheated the
47 Source: Records of CDRF, Bellary the Complaint was disposed on 30/6/2012
184
complainant by giving the said rolled gold chain to him. When the
complainant contacted the respondent in this regard and informed about it
the respondent told that the said chain does not belong to their shop and
threatened the complainant. Therefore, the complainant sought relief.
The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
The complainant entitled to recover Rs. 36,142/- from the respondents.
The complainant is entitled to recover Rs. 1,000/- towards compensation for
mental agony. The complainant is also entitled to recover Rs. 1,000/- towards
cost of the proceedings. The respondents are directed to comply with the
above said order within two months from the date of this order. On receipt of
the amount ordered from the respondents the complainant is directed to hand
over the chain in question (involved in this case) to the respondents.
10. Sri. K. Venugopal v The Tahasildar, Bellary. 48
The complaint filed by the complainant against the Respondent u/s 12
of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The complaint in brief is that the complainant preferred an application
under Right to Information Act before the respondent on 28-07-2011
along with the postal order for Rs. 20/-and asked for the documents
pertaining to the land bearing sy. no 1065 measuring 10.26 acres situated at
Bellary rural taluka. The documents sought for are form No. 7, Tribunal
Proceedings, Statement of parties, notices, order, form No. 10 and any other
48 http://164.100, 72.12/ncdrcrep/1853 0120 7051 51835751 CC-56, 2012 pdf.the complaint was disposed on 16/5/2012
185
documents. The respondent received the said application and failed to
provide documents sought for within 30 days as stipulated under Right to
Information Act. In this regard, the complainant approached the Respondent
several times made requests. But the respondent is not provided the
information. He reliably learnt that the Respondent has violated the
provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The complaint is having right to
receive the information sought for, as per the Right to Information Act and
the respondent has failed to provide the same. The act of the respondent
amounts to deficiency in service. The respondent wilfully and intentionally
did not provide information. Hence, the complaint for total compensation of
Rs. 47,000/- towards deficiency in service, mental agony and miscellaneous
expenses.
The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
The complainant is entitled to recover sum of Rs. 500/- towards deficiency in
service and Rs.500/- towards cost of the proceedings from the respondent.
The respondent directed to pay the entire amount ordered to the complainant,
within two months from the date of the order.