The Darjeeling District Consumer Commission has directed Amazon Seller Services and a seller to pay Rs 4.68 lakh compensation to a customer over delivery of the wrong camera model. The ruling highlights e-commerce platform liability and questions the intermediary defence used by online marketplaces.
The Jalandhar Consumer Commission directed a restaurant to pay Rs 15,000 compensation to a lawyer after finding that a mandatory service charge of Rs 151.53 was added without consent. The forum held that such automatic charges amount to an unfair trade practice.
The Pathanamthitta Consumer Commission directed KSBC to compensate a customer for charging more than the printed MRP on a beer bottle. Holding the practice to be an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, the Commission awarded refund, compensation, and costs totaling Rs 25,000.
The Puducherry Consumer Commission held a restaurant guilty of deficiency in service after a customer found a dead fly in a plate of biryani. The Commission ordered compensation for mental distress and directed the restaurant to provide ten plates of fresh Hyderabadi chicken biryani free of cost.
A District Consumer Commission directed FirstCry to compensate a customer after finding that it arbitrarily cancelled an order, withheld payment, and labelled the customer a “fraud user” without inquiry or due process. The Commission ordered refund with interest and compensation for mental distress.
The Supreme Court has ruled that consumer forums can enforce all their orders like civil court decrees, ending an 18-year gap caused by a 2002 amendment. The judgment ensures consumers get real justice and not just “paper victories.”
