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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more