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 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 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.
A Bengaluru court fined Tonique for charging a customer for a carry bag that had the store’s branding. The court called the act “unprofessional and unfair,” stating that customers should not be made to pay for unsolicited advertising. Tonique was also directed to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation to the customer.
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that real estate developers must obtain both a completion certificate and a fire safety clearance before offering possession of a flat, deeming it illegal to do otherwise. This landmark decision reinforces homebuyers’ rights by ensuring developers are accountable for securing all necessary approvals.
Kerala Consumer Court has awarded Mollywood actor Harisree Ashokan Rs 17.83 lakhs in compensation for defective tiles in his home, ‘Punjabi House.’ The court emphasized the impact of consumer complaints on individuals’ lives and the importance of being informed about product standards. Ashokan’s frustration and mental distress highlight consumer vulnerability in facing negligence.
