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

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more