The District Consumer Commission, New Delhi, held IRCTC guilty of serving unhygienic food after a passenger found a dead worm in Veg Biryani on the Poorva Express. The Commission said IRCTC is “expected to maintain standards” and awarded Rs 25,000 as compensation.
WhatsApp has filed a petition in the Allahabad High Court against a ruling by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Commission, which allowed a consumer complaint regarding a service disruption to proceed in Indian courts. The high court has put the proceedings on hold until further notice, with the next hearing scheduled for July.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Lucknow ruled against Vishal Mega Mart for unfair trade practices after they charged a customer Rs. 18 for a carry bag without consent. The store must refund the amount, pay interest, and compensate the customer for harassment, highlighting the importance of customer approval in such charges.
The Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled that WhatsApp can be sued in Indian consumer courts, as its services impact Indian users. This decision overturned a previous dismissal, affirming that WhatsApp, as a service provider, falls under Indian consumer laws. The commission directed the district forum to register and resolve a complaint from Amitabh Thakur within 90 days.
The Delhi High Court ruled that WhatsApp chats cannot be admitted as evidence in court without proper certification under the Indian Evidence Act. This decision came in the case of Dell International Services India Private Limited v. Adeel Feroze, addressing delays in filing a written statement in a consumer dispute complaint. The ruling highlights the need for certification of electronic evidence and adherence to procedural timelines in consumer disputes.
Today (22nd April): The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s order involving Yash Raj Films and the song “Jabra Fan.” The dispute arose when a consumer sought compensation for the song’s absence in the movie “Fan.” YRF successfully argued that the consumer did not qualify as a consumer and had publicly disclosed the song’s exclusion before the movie’s release.