The South Mumbai Consumer Commission ruled that court registries do not provide commercial services under consumer law. It held that delays in supplying certified copies relate to judicial administration and cannot be examined by consumer forums.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ruled that courts do not qualify as commercial service providers, dismissing a law graduate’s complaint against the Bombay Court Registrar over delayed certified copies of proceedings.
An Ahmedabad consumer court fined a tailor Rs 7,000 for failing to deliver a blouse on time for a family wedding. The court held that the delay caused mental distress and amounted to a clear deficiency in service.
The Mumbai Consumer Commission found Flipkart and Thomson TV guilty of selling a defective television and failing to address the customer’s complaints. The commission ruled that both companies are jointly responsible, ordering a full refund of Rs 13,999, compensation for mental distress, and covering litigation costs, collectively amounting to Rs 20,000.
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, has ruled in favor of a complainant against Nokia Mobile Company Ltd. and its dealer over a defective phone and inadequate redressal.
A Mumbai woman awarded Rs 2.7 lakh compensation after a chandelier fell during her wedding at JW Marriott, causing distress and injuries. The hotel’s negligence was found to be responsible, leading to a ruling of deficiency in service. Despite an offer of partial refund, legal action resulted in the compensation being granted.
The Consumer Commission has directed Honda to replace a motorcycle due to a manufacturing defect, marking a significant decision in consumer rights advocacy. The ruling came despite the absence of an expert report, with the Commission’s coram, comprising presiding member Milind S Sonawane, and members Nisha A Chavhan and Nagesh C Kumbre, pointing to the […]
