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

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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more