Skip to main content

Consumer court - No penalty unless asked for it

The Supreme Court has stated that a consumer court cannot impose penal compensation when the aggrieved person did not ask for it. In this case, General Motors vs Ashok Ramnik, the National Consumer Commission imposed compensation on the car manufacturer for selling its vehicles as SUV to 260 customers though the model did not qualify for that description. Ashok had a dream to drive in a sports model vehicle to the high hills. The brochure of General Motors promised exactly that. So he bought a Chevrolet Forester model for Rs 14 lakh in 2004. But he was disappointed on several fronts and sued the firm for unfair trade practices like promising facilities which were not available. The district consumer forum asked the firm to return the money with costs of litigation and Rs 5,000 for mental agony. The firm appealed to the State Consumer Commission, which found that it was not a SUV as was described in the brochures. So it asked the manufacturer to correct its claims in future ads. When the appeal was taken to the National Commission, it imposed Rs 25 lakh compensation on the firm in the nature of punishment for unfair trade practice. Rs 20 lakh would go to the consumer welfare fund of the government, the commission ordered. General Motors appealed to the Supreme Court. It ruled that the National Commission had gone beyond its powers by imposing punitive damages, when the affected party did not ask for it.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/more-sc-rules-on-bouncing-cheques-114101900726_1.html

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

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

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