The Karnataka High Court has closed a public interest litigation regarding the filling of vacancies in consumer fora, including District Commissions and the State Consumer Commission. The government informed the court about the formation of a search committee for appointments. Despite concerns over delays, the court deemed further intervention unnecessary, closing the petition.
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that consumer courts can intervene in unfair builder-buyer agreements, calling them an “unfair trade practice” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. In a case involving the “Godrej Summit” project in Gurgaon, the court upheld a 10% deduction instead of 20% on cancellation, siding with homebuyers. It also stated that contracts heavily favoring developers will not be enforced. However, the court removed the 6% interest on the refund, citing that the buyers canceled due to market conditions, not builder fault.
Consumer rights are an important part of today’s society, designed to protect people from unfair practices and make sure they get the goods and services they pay for. But sometimes, consumers face problems with a product or service and may need to take legal action. In such cases, “filing a consumer case in a consumer court” becomes essential. In today’s digital world, consumers are exposed to many products and services. Sometimes, they may face issues with these goods or services. In these situations, “filing a consumer case” is a legal way to get justice. It allows you to raise your complaints and seek a solution, whether it’s getting a refund, compensation, or fixing the problem.
The Supreme Court observed Today (Sept 11) that it was an important issue and posted the matter for hearing on September 18. The Court was hearing a batch of appeals against several decisions of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), all of which raised a common question of law.
The Supreme Court directed Mercedes to refund Rs. 36 lakh to M/s Controls and Switchgear Company Limited for selling a defective car. The court upheld the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, citing the discomfort and inconvenience caused to the respondent and the lack of evidence from Mercedes to support its claims.
