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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more