A lawyer has filed a consumer court case against Gucci, alleging that defective shoes caused him to slip and suffer injuries. He claims the luxury brand caused physical harm, mental trauma, and failed in customer service.
A Bengaluru court ruled that Fala Holidays must refund Rs 1.5 lakh, plus interest and compensation to Hafeez Pasha, misled by a fake lucky draw offer. After persistent pressure to buy a costly membership without service, Pasha sought justice through the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which found the company guilty of unfair practices.
The Indian Supreme Court expressed significant concerns over Flipkart’s market dominance, questioning its impact on competition and smaller businesses. The Court appointed an amicus curiae and highlighted issues regarding Flipkart’s discounts harming small traders. AIOVA, the complainant, was absent from the hearing, leading to a discussion about fair representation in the case.
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.
Today, On 20th December, The Supreme Court set-aside the NCDRC’s 2008 decision that limited credit card interest rates to 30%. The NCDRC earlier criticized banks for charging high rates of 36% to 49% on overdue payments. The Supreme Court’s ruling will affect how banks set interest on credit card dues. This decision shows a change in financial regulation policies.
Former Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar recommends that the Modi government prioritize appointing new judges to address vacancies in the judiciary, rather than assigning retired judges to tribunals. He highlights the criticism faced by tribunals for backlogs and delays, emphasizing the need to expand the judiciary. Kumar also discusses potential delays in implementing criminal laws and reforms due to the structure of the coalition government.
The Consumer Court ruled in favor of a customer in a dispute against Ajio.com, an e-commerce platform, for failing to deliver ordered items, causing mental distress. The court ordered Ajio.com to refund the customer, compensate for distress, and cover litigation expenses, highlighting the importance of customer protection and prompt issue resolution in e-commerce.
The Hyderabad consumer commission has ruled in favor of a customer, directing Toyota to compensate and refund Rs. 50.57 lakh for an undelivered vehicle, criticizing the company’s failure to address the fraud. This case reflects a broader trend of consumer grievances against automotive manufacturers, as illustrated by similar incidents involving Ducati and Hyundai.
