Skip to main content

Consumer forums cannot be used to extort money for unjust enrichments

Consumer forums cannot be "used to extort money for unjust enrichments", a consumer forum in the city said while disposing a matter where a man had sought compensation of around Rs 5 lakh for allegedly being duped by a mobile phone seller.

The complainant, advocate Hari Shankar Rai, said the phone had a camera of lower resolution than promised by the seller and also did not have a FM radio. While seeking the hefty compensation, Rai claimed he suffered a loss of around Rs 50,000 on account of the phone, which he had purchased for Rs 3,000. Though the forum awarded him a compensation of Rs 5,000, it observed that Rai's claim was "hard to believe" and there was no evidence to prove that he suffered such a huge loss on account of the phone.

East district consumer disputes redressal forum also imposed a cost of Rs 20,000 on D2H mobile shop in Okhla Industrial Area for indulging in unfair trade practices to promote sale of its products by misrepresenting facts. "..No one can use forums to extort money for unjust enrichment. But since this case affects the public at large as the respondent used print media to lure customers, we impose punitive damages of Rs 20,000," the bench presided by N A Zaidi said.

Rai had said he was "lured" into buying the phone after seeing an ad in a famous Hindi daily in 2012. He said the ad claimed the phone would have a 3.2 megapixel camera, FM, MP3, MP4, Bluetooth, 3G, etc.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Rs-5-lakh-claim-for-phone-irks-forum/articleshow/47942474.cms

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

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more