Skip to main content

'Consumers must obey law to avail protection'


A mobile purchaser, who did not take a receipt to avoid value added tax, lost his case related to a defect in goods against the dealer before Goa state consumer disputes redressal commission.

Dismissing the petition, the commission observed that the "Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was intended to protect the consumers, but consumers can be protected only in accordance with law and not by overstepping the law."


The case relates to Devdatta S Naik, who purchased a Nokia 1600 from Sai cellular services, Margao, at a cost of 3800 in December 2005. He paid the dealer 1000 by cheque and the balance of 2800 in cash. He did not obtain a receipt, in order to save 12.5% tax. The phone failed after two days and had to be sent to Pune for repairs. The replacement phone that the dealer gave him also failed. Naik then insisted on getting a new phone and refused to accept the repaired phone.

When the phone stopped functioning and the citizen demanded a replacement from the manufacturer, he was advised by a lawyer that it would be futile to take up the case with the mobile phone company as the complainant did not have proof of purchase under the terms of the warranty.

The commission noted that the complainant chose not to obtain the purchase receipt with a view to gain 12.5% of the purchase price causing corresponding loss by way of VAT to the government.

He approached the South Goa district consumer forum and sought to recover from the dealer the sum of 3800 of the mobile phone and a sum of 228 as interest @ 18% for a certain period and 10,000 by way of damages on account of deficiency in service, etc. The forum allowed his complaint but with an interest rate of 9%.

Aggrieved with the order, the dealer appealed to the Goa state consumer grievances redressal commission. After hearing arguments from both sides, the commission noted that it is Nokia that was liable to repair or replace or refund the price under the said warranty, and not the dealer. It faulted the findings of the district forum and set aside its order.

Ref to: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-12-10/goa/35725412_1_consumer-disputes-redressal-commission-mobile-phone-goa-state-consumer

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more