Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 43

CHAPTER - V

FINDINGS OF THE CONSUMER DISPUTE


REDRESSAL AGENCIES

In the last two decades, the consumer courts have passed judgments on a

variety of consumer grievances like unfair trade practices, supply of defective goods

and most importantly in the area of services being provided by various sectors like

banking, insurance, medical, housing, transport, telecom, tourism and travel,

electricity, etc. These judgments have provided the much needed relief to the harassed

consumers in deserving cases. While all these judgments including judgments of the

Supreme Court in appeals have been published in various compilations for use of

legal professionals, there have been very few books published to educate the common

consumer on the tremendous impact these judgments cumulatively have produced in

protecting and promoting the consumer rights. This study is meant for the common

man and addresses his concerns while dealing with, for example, an unscrupulous

builder, a grossly negligent doctor, a harassing insurance man who sits endlessly on

claims, an unresponsive Housing Board, or an insensitive tour organizer, etc. It

provides the basic information about the procedural aspects in filing a complaint with

the consumer forum and explains how simple and inexpensive a remedy can be

accessed by providing real case studies, and by giving brief gist of the arguments and

the judgments in common man’s language.1

5.1. Defect in Goods

1 Rajyalakshmi Rao, Consumer is King, (New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co’. 2009)
pp 9-10.

143
Under Indian jurisprudence, a defect is understood as a fault,

imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or

standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time

being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the

trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.2

Illustrative Case Laws

In Solitaire India Ltd. v D.A. Mohan Kumar,3 in the purchase of a

television with two-year warranty period, the purchaser was not allowed to

claim free replacement of picture tube after the expiry of warranty period.

only 30% discount on the replacement cost was allowed.

In Arunodaya v Mehata Computers, 4 The computer supplied was not

in accordance with the specifications spelled out in the quotation, yet the price

indicated in the quotation was charged. The computer was taken away for up

gradation but not returned. The complainant was using desk top printing for

livelihood with no outside help. Thus he was in the category of a consumer.

He was allowed to recover the price paid with interest.

In Statelec Power Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v National Research

Development Corporation of India, 5 The complainant had purchased a UPS

(Uninterrupted Power Supply) from the appellant which was defective.

The supplier encashed the cheque given for annual maintenance but UPS was

not repaired, making out the case for deficiency in service. The state

2 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sec. 2(f).


3 (1992) 1 CPJ 177
4 (2003) 2 CPJ 87 (NC)
5 (2002) 3 CPJ 254 (NC)

144
commission held that the supplier liable to refund the price less battery cost,

with interest @22% p.a. and compensation of 50,000. The National

commission on appeal reduced the interest rate to 12% p.a. and deleted the

award of compensation also.

In Hindustan Motors Ltd. v Malwa Engg. Corpn.,6 complainant

purchased a new car fitted with air conditioner which was defective and

defects were not removed even on repairs from time to time, the State

Commission directed the appellant to change the parts and pay Rs. 50,000 as

compensation to the respondent – complainant. The order was upheld by the

National Commission.

In Quilon Radio Service v P.T. Mathew, 7 the fridge supplied to the

consumer went of order after three months. It was handed over for repairs

and was returned to the buyer after three months, but had no cooling effect. It

was again handed over for repairs and was retuned back after two months. It

started making noise. It was subjected to further repairs for four months but

even then it would not work. The district forum recorded a finding of

manufacturing defect. The dealer did not deny, nor asked for an opportunity

to adduce evidence. His appeal against the judgement was rejected. The

manufacturer was liable. His contention that he came to know about the

matter only on recovery notice from the district forum and, therefore, had no

proper opportunity was not accepted.

5.2.1. Various Deficiencies in Service

6 (2003) 3 CPJ 362 (NC)


7 (1995) 1 CPJ 411 Ker.

145
5.2.1.1. Deficiency in Telephone Service

Section 2 (g) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines the term

"deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the

quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be

maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been

undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or

otherwise in relation to any service.

Meaning of various terms used to signify deficiency

Inadequate – Insufficient, short of what is required (Chambers

Twentieth century Dictionary).

Shortcoming – Act of coming or falling short, neglect of, or failure in

duty defect (Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary).

Fault – Negligence, an error or defect in judgment or of conduct, any

deviation from prudence, duty or rectitude, any short coming, or neglect of

care or performance resulting from in attention, incapacity or perversity,

wrong tendency, course or act, bad faith mismanagement, neglect of duty,

breach of duty, imposed by law or contract an act to which blame, censure,

impropriety, shortcoming or culpability attach wrongful act, omission or

breach.

Imperfection – quality of being incomplete or faulty8

‘Service’ has been defined as “service of any description which is made

8 S. M. Dugar, Commentary on Consumer Protection Law, Vol. 2. 4th Ed. (Nagpur: Wadhwa
and Company, 2006) p 1140.

146
available to potential users”. Some of the most important services to the

citizen, such as banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of

electrical or other energy, boarding or lodging or both, housing construction,

entertainment, amusement, or the purveying of news or other information

have been expressly included in this definition.9

5.2.1. Various Kinds of Deficiency in Service

5.2.1.1. Deficiency in Telephone Service:

In Telecom District Engineer, Dharmasala v Prananath Mahajan, 10 on a

complaint about telephone billing, the department kept the meter under

observation and found no mechanical factor responsible for abnormally

excessive spurt in local calls and there was no circumstantial evidence to

probablise any collusion of P&T staff with third parties, the decision of the

district forum cancelling the excess part of the bill was set aside.

5.2.1.2. Deficiency in Insurance Service

In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v Buldev,11 A show-room, which had

bakery items, stationary and allied goods and also furniture, was insured

against theft, fire and flood. The stack was washed of in a flood. The insurer

raised the continence that the flood risk was excluded by a hand written

endorsement on the proposal form. But this point was not pressed in the

difference statement. The damaged goods were destroyed by the municipality

and a certificate to that effect was issued, the insurer was held liable. The

award of compensation for this location and loss of business and mental

9 Sec. 2 (1) (o) of the C.P. Act, 1986.


10 (1993) CCJ 552 (NC)
11 (2003) 2 CPJ 109 (NC)

147
agony was struck out in appeal.

In oven Rice Trading Company v United India Insurance Company Ltd, 12

Where the insurance claim of the complaint against loss of the paddy and husk

was partially allowed by the insurance company and that too after two year of

the claim. The State Commission held the complainant to be a consumer and

held the delay in settling the claim to be deficiency in service and also held that

repudiation of claim for husk was not justified. The insurance company was

directed to pay the amount of loss as well as interest at 18% p.a. which was

reduced by the national commission appealed to 12% p.a.

5.2.1.4. Deficiency in Medical Service

In Ponam Verma v Aswin Patel, 13 Supreme Court held that a diploma

holder homoeopathy medicine and surgery (DHMS) is under statutory duty

to practice in homoeopathy and that he should not enter the field of any other

system of medicine like allopathic. In instant case the homoeopathy doctor

administrated allopathic medicine without getting any pathological test done

and caused death of the patient. The Court held that since the law required

him to practice in homeopathic only, he was under a statutory duty not to

enter the field of any other system of the medicine has, admittedly, he was not

qualified in other system such as allopathic, to be precise. He

trespassed into a prohibited field and was liable to be prosecuted under

section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. A person who does not

have knowledge of a particular system of medicine but practices in that

12 (2002) CPJ 34 (NC)


13 (1996) 4 SCC 332 (NC)

148
system is a quack and a mere pretender to medical knowledge or skill, or to

put it differently, a charalatar. His conduct amounted to actionable negligence

particularly as the duty of care.

In Corporation Bank v Naveen J. Shah, 14 in the instant case, the court

confirmed the award of a compensation of Rs. 12.5 lakh to the minor child

and Rs. 5 lakh to the parents by the national commission, as the child suffered

irritable brain damages due to negligence of Doctors. Where the respondent

party act in accordance with the agreement with the complainant but the

complainant sustains loss due to some of governmental in action, the

respondent party's service cannot be held to be deficient.

5.2.1.5. Deficiency in Transport Service


The carriage of goods or passengers by airlines, railways, buses, taxies,

trucks and autos is a service under the Act in fact transport is included in the

definition of service under section 2(1)(o). Thus any kind of deficiency

pertaining to the said services would be a deficiency in service.

In Union of India v Q.S. Shipchandler, 15 the Bombay High Court held

that the grievance about fares charged by railways for A.C. Chair-cars etc. has

to be decided by the railway rates tribunal and not by the consumer’s

disputes redressal agencies. Selling defective car as a brand new car, and not

taking any action to get the defects rectified, after the same were brought to

the notice of seller, amount to failure in service.

14 (2000) 2 SCC 628


15 (2003) 1 AIC 463 (Bomb. HC)

149
In Unique Traders v France Air Pvt. Ltd. 16 when a confirmed ticket is

issued in favour of a person by Airways Authorities, failure to provide him a

seat in the flight when he reports himself at the airport in time would be

negligence on the part of the Airways Authorities and therefore it would be a

clear case of deficiency in service under the act.

5.2.1.6. Deficiency in Courier Service

The most common complaint against courier services/companies is that

they do not delivery the parcels within time or that the contents of the parcels

are missing, thus where a courier accepted a parcel to deliver it to the

addressee.

In K.S. Venkataramann & Co. Ltd. v Overnight Express Pvt. Ltd. 17

by the stipulated time as per the direction of the sender and also received the

charges, therefore, but failed to deliver it by the stipulated time it has been

held to be a deficiency in service.

In Consumer Education and Research Society v Skypak Couriers, 18 the

complaint was made on behalf of Mr. M.A. Khan Textile Technologist who

was selected as a Jackurard and Installation Manager at Logus, Nigeria.

Before joining at Nigeria, training programme was organised for him by his

new employer, at Zurich Switzerland and later in Germany. On his

instructions, Mona Travels, Delhi, sent him air ticket, passport, Swiss and

Nigerian Visas, testimonials. etc. to Ahmadabad through the opposite party.

The document were lost and never reached Ahmadabad. The Gujarat State

16 (1996) II CPR 313 (Raj. CDRC)


17 (1992) 1 CPR 98 (Tamil Nadu CDRC)
18 (1991) 1 CPR 362 (NCDRC)

150
Commission held that the services rendered by the opposite party were

deficient and ordered to pay compensation for loss of feature prospectus and

expenses incurred for obtaining duplicate documents.

5.2.1.7. Deficiency in Postal Service

In Post Master General, Tamil Nadu v Calvin Jocob,19 the complainant

had sent through his son 267 invitation cards Rs. 267 in cash to be franked and

posted. The counter clerk of the post office had not posted the cards which he

received with cash on the bank of uncontroverted evidence consisting of the

affidavit of the complainant and the supporting letters as many as 47 invites, it

was proved that cards were never posted it was argued on behalf of the Post

Master General that the Complainant was not entitled to any compensation by

reason of Sec. 6 of the Post Office Act. The national commission turned down the

argument and held that the care was not covered u/s 6 of the Act. For the reason

that was not a care where a postal article which had been dully posted had been

lost was a delay in its delivery or damage to it. On the other hand this was a case

where on article which had been entrusted to the counter clerk for being franked

and dispatched by post was not post at all. The national commission, therefore,

awarded compensation of Rs. 13767/- consisting of Rs. 500/- as the value of the

cards, Rs. 367/- being the amount of postage interested to the counter clerk, Rs.

3000/- on the ground of loss caused by the wastage of the Food, and Rs. 10000/-

as compensation for the mental pain and agony caused to the amount.

5.2.1.8. Deficiency in Educational Service

19 (1994) III CPJ 85 (NCDRC)

151
In Sridharn Nair v Registrar, the University of Kerala, 20 the result of

examination of the complainant declared by the university was found to be

erroneous and incorrect. The University pledged that it was due to over sight

and the mistake had been promptly rectified. The Harayana State

Commission held that whenever the University defaults from its primal duty

of care in this context, the examinees could clearly be entitled to compensation

under the Act. For the deficiency in the services rendered and the commission

thus, awarded compensation of Rs. 500/- to the complainant.

5.2.1.9. Deficiency in Housing Service

In Ameer Singh v Delhi Development Authority, 21 the complainant was

allotted a plot by DDA and he paid its full price. The possession of the plot was

not delivered to him, as the same plot was allotted to the some one else.

However, the complainant was allotted another plot after two years in the same

locality. The Delhi State Commission held that if on account of mistake on the

part of the officials and DDA the complainant could not be delivered possession

of the plot allotted to him than complainant is not liable to pay the enhanced

price of the other plot allotted to him later. The commission further ordered that

the complainant was also entitled to compensation on account of delayed

delivery of the plot at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount of the deposited

by him initially till the later plot was allotted.

5.2.1.10. Deficiency in Banking Service

20 (1993) 1 CPR 274 (Haryana, CDRC)


21 (1993) 1 CPR 541 (Delhi, CDRC)

152
In N. Ravindran Nair v. State Bank of India, 22 the complainant had

remitted sum of Rs. 98000/- at State Bank of India, Travancore, Vengarnur

Branch and produced a demand draft for the said amount payable at Surat.

He presented the draft at the State Bank of India, Surat only to be issued a

dishonoured memo. The Bank refused to encash the draft as the specimen

signatory member of one of the two officials of the issued branch was missing.

As a result the complainant was stranded in the distant place peniles and

could not purchase textile. It was argued by the bank that the dishonour was

not done with malafide intention but as per the instructions and guidelines of

Reserve Bank of India. The Kerala State Commission observed that there was

no suspicion against the status of the complainant and he was not responsible

in any way. The Commission held that the draft was dishonoured due to the

fault of the Bank and thus the services rendered by the bank were deficient.

The Commission ordered the bank to pay Rs. 19500/- as

compensation to the complainant for inconvenience and mental agony.

5.2.1.11. Deficiency in Electricity Supply

In P. Jagadeesan v Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 23 the electric supply

line to the petitioner’s premises had been in existence for ten years prior to the

date of disconnection without any objection from any quarter. The

electric supply was disconnected by the electricity board on the ground that it

was drown across the road through which a procession of the chief minister

was to pass and it constituted on obstruction to the free movement of the chief

22 (1991) II CPJ 258 (Ker. CDRC)


23 (1998) 1 CPJ (NCDRC)

153
minister convey. But no steps were taken by the electricity board to reconnect

the line even after the date of the procession was over. The National

Commission held that the disconnection had been made only for meeting the

temporary need for enabling the chief ministers convey to pass along the road

without any obstruction by the said line and in such a situation, it is the

obligatory on the part of the electricity board to reconnect the said line and

the restore the supply of electricity to the complainant immediately after the

temporary need was served. Thus, the failure on the part of the electricity

board to reconnect the electric supply clearly constitutes deficiency in service.

5.3.1. Specific Categories of Unfair Trade Practice

Here some categories of the UTP have been analysed.

5.3.1.1. False or Misleading Representation

The first category of unfair trade practice has been laid down in clause

(1) of Section 2(1)(r) which relates to the practice of making false or

misleading representation. All the sub-clauses (i) to (x) of this provision have

a common element of factum of representation which must be false or

misleading.

False means which is not true. The expression ‘falsely represents’ used

in section 36A (1) indicates that the representation is contrary to facts. It is

stated in Halsbury’s Laws of England, that a representation, will be deemed

to be false, if it is false in substance and in fact, and the test by which the

representation is to be judged is to see whether the discrepancy between the

fact as represented and the actual fact is such as would be considered material

154
by a reasonable represented.

In Lakhanpal National Ltd. v MRTP Commission,24 another way of

stating the rule is to say that substantial falsity is, on the one hand necessary,

and, on the other, adequate to establish a misrepresentation and that where

the entire representation is a faithful picture or transcript of the essential facts,

no falsity is established, and even though there may have been any number of

in accuracies in unimportant details conversely, if the general impression

conveyed is false, the most functions and scrupulous accuracy in immaterial

minute will not render the representation true.

The term misleading means capable of leading into error, there is an

obligation on the seller that if he advertises or otherwise represents, he must

speak the truth. This obligation also requires that the representation must

avoid half-truths. Sometimes, a statement may be literally true and yet it may

be false or misleading. An advertisement may be misleading because things

are omitted that should be said or because advertisements are composed or

purposefully printed in such a way as to mislead.25

5.3.1.2. Bait Advertising and Bargain Price

The second category is in clause (2) of Section 2(1)(r) of unfair trade

practice includes the publication of an advertisement in a news paper or

otherwise by which goods or services are offered at a bargain price when in

fact this is not the intention or they are not intended to be offered at that price

for a reasonable period or reasonable quantity.

24 (2002) 3 CPJ 246 (NC)


25 V. K. Agarwal, Consumer Protection Law and Practice, 5th Ed. (New Delhi: B.L.H.
Publishers’ Distributors Pvt. Ltd. 2009) p 304.

155
The bait advertisement is a false or misleading representation where by

the goods for services are offered at attractive bargaining price, when in

reality the advertiser knows that the people would have very little chance of

obtaining supplies at that price.

'Bargain Price' means a price that a person who reads, hears or sees the

advertisement, would reasonably understand to be a bargain price having

regard to the price at which the product advertised or like product are

ordinarily sold. Thus, an advertisement which makes no specific claim to be

offering a reduced or bargain price may yet be caught if price stated is on

which a member of the public could reasonably understand to be a bargain

price because it is lower than price normally charged for the similar goods or

services.

In Consumer Unity and Trust Society v Balkrishna Khurana,26 the

respondent was publishing the advertisement in the news papers offering the

sale of hosiery goods are export quality at ridiculously low rates.

In order to tempt the intending buyers to flock to his business premises, the

sales were said to remain in operation only for an unreasonably short period

2/3 days. The MRTP Commission held that it to be an unfair trade practice

prejudicial to public interest.

5.3.1.2. Offering Gifts and Prizes and Conducting Promotional Contests

The third category is in clause (3) of Section 2(1)(r) of unfair trade

practice includes in its fold the offering of any gifts, prizes or other items

26 (1989) 66 Comp. Case, 519 (SC)

156
along with the goods when the real intention is different or giving the

impression that something is being offered free of price along with the goods

when in fact the price is wholly or partly covered by the price of the article

sold, or some prizes are offered to the buyers by the conduct of some lottery

or chance game when the real aim is promotion of sales or business.

Frequently, there are offers of gifts and prizes from various business

firms in order to attract the customer but there is no ultimate benefit to him

since these gifts and prizes are only in name and the intention is not of giving

any prizes or gift to the customer but to attract him to buy the goods not

needed by him. In a country like India, where majority of the people cannot

afford to meet the basic necessities of life, some items of luxury and

extravagance are easily sold out by the manufacturers through tactics like

offering of gifts or prizes, bait advertising, misleading advertising, etc.

Some business concerns indulge in practices in the name of promotional

contests to attract customers to their products or premises. The innocent and

ignorant customers fall an easy prey to the concealed cheating by these

concerns in the name of promotional contests like “Spot the Star” contest.27

5.3.1.4. Sale of substandard or underweight goods

The fourth category is in clause (4) of Section 2(1)(r) of unfair trade

practice includes cases where goods are sold for use or likely use by

consumers, the seller knowing or having reason to believe that they do not

comply with standards prescribed by some competent Authority.

27 Supra Note 25, pp. 304-305

157
Sale of sub-standard or post warranty service or sale of underweight

packets of goods have been held by State as well as National Commission as

an unfair trade practice under Section 2 (i)(r) of the Act.

One of the most important right available to the consumers is to assure

that goods purchased will be reasonably safe in use. There is an urgent need

for effective action in the field of consumer product safety. Increasing

affluence and the increasing range of complex nature of products have led to

the prevalent situation in which unsafe products may cause death or serious

injury. Some times the danger arises from defective design, or substandard

material or poor workmanship.

5.3.1.5. Hoarding, Destruction or Refusal

The fifth category is in clause (5) of Section 2(1) (r) of unfair trade

practice includes cases of hoarding, destruction of or refusal to sell, goods or

services. Clause (5) says that a practice will be unfair if it involves hoarding or

destruction of goods, or refusal to sell the goods or to provide any services if

such conduct is intended to raise or has the effect of raising the cost of those

or other similar goods or services.28

5.3.1.6. Spurious Goods, Deceptive Practices

The Amendment Act, 2002 inserted a new sub-clause (6) in section 2(1)

(r) of the Act to further enlarge the scope of the definition of ‘unfair trade

practice’ to include manufacture of spurious goods or to offer such goods for

sale. Adoption of deceptive practices in the provision of services, according to

28 Avtar Singh, Law of Consumer Protection: Principles and Practice, 4th Ed. (Lucknow:
Eastern Book Co., 2009) pp 191-192.

158
this provision, manufacture of spurious goods or offering such goods for sale

or adopting deceptive practices in the provision of services will amount to an

unfair trade practice. Clause(oo) of the section 2(1) of the act defines spurious

goods and services to mean such goods and services which are claimed to be

genuine but they are not actually so.

5.4. Restrictive Trade Practice


The Amendment Act, 2002 has substituted a new definition of

‘restrictive trade practice’ in the Consumer protection Act. The definition

given in Consumer Protection Act is narrower as compared to the definition

given under the MRTP Act. The definition under the MRTP Act is wider,

exhaustive and result oriented.

Clause (nnn) of section 2(1) of the Act defines the concept of ‘restrictive

trade practice’ to mean a trade practice which tends to bring about

manipulation of price or its conditions of delivery or to affect flow of supplies

in the market relating to goods or services in such a manner as to impose on

the consumers unjustified costs or restrictions and shall include;

(a) delay beyond the period agreed to by a trader in supply of such goods

or in providing the services which has led or is likely to lead to rise in

the price;

(b) any trade practice which requires a consumer to buy, hire or avail of

any goods or, as the case may be, services as condition precedent to

buying, hiring or availing of other goods or services.

The aforesaid definition clearly reveals a trade practice will be a

restrictive trade practice if it-

159
i) tends to bring about manipulation of price or conditions of

delivery; or

ii) to affect flow of supplies in the market relating to goods or services

in such a manner as to impose on the consumer unjustified costs or

restrictions.

In addition to the general definition, certain specific trade practices

stipulated in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (nnn) of section 2(1) have been

made per se restrictive trade practices. Thus, any delay beyond the agreed

period by a trader in supply of goods or in providing the service which has

led or is likely to lead to rise in the price will fall within the ambit of

restrictive trade practice. Similarly, a trade practice of tie-up sale will also be a

restrictive trade practice. The provision of restrictive trade practice of tie-up

sale was existing even prior to 2002 amendment.

The new definition given in clause (nnn) by the Amendment Act, 2002

has further widened the scope of the concept of ‘restrictive trade practice’. The

legislation intention is clear that it expands the meaning of restrictive trade

practice by extending it to manipulation of price or conditions of delivery or flow

of supplies leading to unjustified costs or restrictions. The two inclusive sub-

clauses (a) and (b) have widened its scope but not exhausting what is being

covered by the earlier part of the definition.29

5.5. Findings of the District Forum. —

(1) If, after the proceeding conducted under section 13, the District Forum is

29 S. S. Gulshan, Consumer Protection and Satisfaction: Legal and Managerial Dimension


(New Delhi: Wiley Eastern Ltd., and Age International Ltd., 1995), pp. 4-5.

160
satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects

specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the

complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite

party directing him to do one or more of the following things, namely:—

(a) to remove the defect pointed out by the appropriate laboratory from

the goods in question;

(b) to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall

be free from any defect;

(c) to return to the complainant the price, or, as the case may be, the

charges paid by the complainant;

(d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the

consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the

negligence of the opposite party. Provided that the District Forum shall

have the power to grant punitive damages in such circumstances as it

deems fit;

(e) to remove the defects in goods or deficiencies in the services in

question;

(f) to discontinue the unfair trade practice or the restrictive trade practice

or not to repeat it;

(g) not to offer the hazardous goods for sale;

(h) to withdraw the hazardous goods from being offered for sale;

(i) (ha)to cease manufacture of hazardous goods and to desist from

offering services which are hazardous in nature;

161
(hb) to pay such sum as may be determined by it if it is of the opinion

that loss or injury has been suffered by a large number of consumers

who are not identifiable conveniently:

Provided that the minimum amount of sum so payable shall not be less

than five per cent of the value of such defective goods sold or service

provided, as the case may be, to such consumers:

Provided further that the amount so obtained shall be credited in

favour of such person and utilized in such manner as may be prescribed;

(hc) to issue corrective advertisement to neutralize the effect of misleading

advertisement at the cost of the opposite party responsible for issuing such

misleading advertisement;

(i) to provide for adequate costs to parties.

(2) Every proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) shall be conducted by the

President of the District Forum and at least one member thereof sitting

together:

Provided that where a member, for any reason, is unable to conduct a

proceeding till it is completed, the President and the other member shall

continue the proceeding from the stage at which it was last heard by the

previous member.

(2A) Every order made by the District Forum under sub-section (1) shall be

signed by its President and the member or members who conducted the

proceeding:

162
Provided that where the proceeding is conducted by the President and

one member and they differ on any point or points, they shall state the point

or points on which they differ and refer the same to the other member for

hearing on such point or points and the opinion of the majority shall be the

order of the District Forum.

(3) Subject to the foregoing provisions, the procedure relating to the conduct

of the meetings of the District Forum, its sittings and other matters shall be

such as may be prescribed by the State Government.

It may be noted that prior to the 1993-amendments, the District Forum

was having power to do one or more of the things mentioned in clauses (a) to

(d). It was felt that these powers were not enough to provide adequate relief

to the aggrieved consumer. There was no specific power to award costs to the

complainant in deserving cases. There was no provision to prevent the sale of

goods likely to endanger the life or health of public. Similarly, there was no

power to pass cease and desist order against unfair trade practice. To remove

these difficulties, the consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 1993 inserted

clauses (e) to (i) in section 14(1) of the Act. These clauses confer additional

powers on the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies to order for removal of

deficiencies from the services, not to offer the hazardous goods for sale, to

withdraw the hazardous goods from being offered for sale, to award costs to

the parties, and to pass ‘cease and desist’ order against any unfair or

restrictive trade practice.

The amendment Act, 2002 has inserted clauses (ha), (hb), and (hc) in

163
section 14(1) of the Act. These clauses further empower the District Forum to

issue orders directing the opposite party, inter alia, to cease to manufacture of

hazardous goods and desist from offering services which are hazardous in

nature; to pay such sum not less than five per cent of the value of defective goods

sold or services provided where loss or injury has been suffered by a large

number of consumers who are not conveniently identifiable; and to issue

corrective advertisement to neutralize the effect of misleading advertisement at

the cost of the opposite party responsible for issuing such misleading

advertisement. A proviso, to clause (d) of section 14 (1) has also been inserted by

the 2002- amendment, which confers additional power to District Forum to grant

punitive damages in such circumstances as it deems fit.

5.5.1. Remedies available to Consumers:-


5.5.1.1. Removal of defects
Where the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects

pointed out by the appropriate laboratory, the District Forum can issue an

order to the opposite party to remove the defect from the goods in question.

Where the complainant alleges such a defect in the goods which cannot be

determined by any analysis or test, the Forum should decide the complaint on

the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the respective parties and pass

necessary order under section 14 of the Act.

5.5.1.2. Replacement of Goods

Clause (b) of section 14 (1) provides that where the District Forum

finds that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects

164
specified in the complaint, it may direct the opposite party to replace the

goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any

defect. It is not clear when the Forum can order for the removal of defects

under clause (a) of section 14 (1) or when it can ask for the replacement of

goods under clause (b) of the same section. It appears that it has been left to

the discretion of the Forum. But the discretion must be exercised judiciously

keeping in view the nature of the defect, the nature of goods, the use of the

goods and other relevant facts and circumstances of the case.

For example, where it is not possible to remove the defect properly, or

the goods are not likely to give satisfactory performance even after the

removal of the defect, the forum may order the replacement of the goods with

new goods. Similarly, where a product suffers from a major manufacturing

defect, the forum shall order for replacement of that product.30

In Abhay Kumar Panda v Bajaj Auto Ltd., 31 The complainant

purchased a Bajaj Auto Trailer manufactured by the respondent. The vehicle

suffered from a major structural manufacturing defect. The National

Commission observed that the manufacturer should not have sold initially a

product which suffered from a major manufacturing defect. This should have

been rejected or condemned at the stage of quality control examination and

testing, and if it escaped defective at these stages, the particular product

should have been with drawn from the market or the consumer voluntarily.

The commission, therefore, ordered, inter alia that the respondent should

30 CPJ ) I (1992 88 (NCRDC)


31 CPJ II (1991) 398 (Ker. CDRC)

165
replace the vehicle by a new auto trailer of the identical specification after

verification by testing and inception that it was free from defects with fresh

usual warranty.

In Dyna Vision Ltd. v Sudhakar Kamath32 the complainant purchased a

Dynora Colour Television and it was discovered after three years of use that

the original Philips picture tube which the set was supposed to contain had

been replaced by an old Korean picture tube. The Kerala State Commission

ordered that the producer should fit a new picture tube and also to pay Rs.

2,000 by way of compensation for inconvenience.

In Issoc Mathew v Maruti Udyog Ltd.33 a car which was damaged and

was subsequently repaired and supplied to the complainant as a new car. The

Kerala State Commission ordered that the car be replaced with a new car and

also awarded compensation to the complainant for the inconvenience.

5.5.1.3. Return of Price

Under clause (c) of section 14 (1) of the Act if the District Forum finds

that the goods or services complained against suffer from any defect or

deficiency specified in the complaint it may

order the opposite party to return to the complainant the price, or the charges

paid by the complainant.

In Maheshwari Parikh v Chudasma Footwear.34 Once it is proved that

the goods were not of the standard quality and defective and required to be

returned to the seller, the customer is entitled to return of full price.

32 CPJ II (1991) 75 (Ker. CDRC)


33CPR I (1991) 105 (Guj. CDRC)
34 CPR I (1992) 133 (Kant. CDRC)

166
In Bhamy Shenoy v KSRTC, 35 The complainant was a passenger who

could not be conversed to his destination owing to road obstruction.

The State Commission ordered the bus operator to refund his ticket money to

and pro.

The provision of clause(c) of the section 14 (1) of the Act does not

expressly provide whether the Forum can also order the return of the price

charged in excess of the price ‘fixed’ by any authority or manufacturer.

It seems that this power may be exercised implicitly.

In Bharath Tractors v Ramachandra Pandey,36 the complainant had

purchased a tractor from the appellant and was charged excess price having

regard to the price fixed by the manufacturer. The State Commission ordered

the refund of the excess amount with 16% interest to the complainant. The

National Commission upheld the order of the State Commission and

dismissed the appeal.

5.5.1.4. Compensation for Loss or Injury

Under clause (d) of section 14 (1) of the Act if the District Forum is

satisfied that the goods or the services complained against suffer from any

defect or deficiency specified in the complaint, it may order the opposite party

directing him to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation

to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by him due to the negligence

of the opposite party.

It is pertinent to note that the Forum may award compensation only if

35 CPJ ) I (1991 152 (NCRDC)


36 CPR I (1996) 60 (NCRDC)

167
two conditions are satisfied:

i) The consumer must have suffered some loss or injury; and

ii) The loss or injury must have been caused due to the negligence of the

opposite party.

Further, according to the proviso to clause (d) of section 14(1) inserted

by the 2002 amendment the District – Forum shall have the power to grant

punitive damages in such circumstances as it deems fit.

Negligence is the breach of a duty to take care which results in damage

to the plaintiff. It is the absence of such care, skill and diligence in rendering

the service as is expected of or required of a reasonable man.

In R.R. Gopal v Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 37 It is

committing to do something that a reasonable man would not do. It is want

proper care or attention in rendering the service from judged from the

standards of performance by reasonable man.

Negligence has many manifestations - it may be active negligence,

collateral negligence, comparative negligence, concurring negligence,

continued negligence, criminal negligence, gross negligence, hazardous

negligence, active and passive negligence, will full or reckless negligence or

negligence per se, which is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as under:

Negligence Per se: conduct, whether of action or omission, which may

be declared and treated as negligence without any argument or proof as to the

particular surrounding circumstance either because it is in violation of a

37 CPJ I (1995) (SC)

168
statute or valid Municipal Ordinance, or because it is so palpably opposed to

the dictates of common prudence that it can be said without hesitation or

doubt that no careful person would have been guilty of it. As a general rule,

the violation of a public duty, enjoyed by law for the protection of person or

property, so constitutes.

The Supreme Court in Consumer Unity & Trust Society, Jaipur v

The Chairman and Managing Director,38 Bank of Baroda, Calcutta & Another,

thus has held that where the loss of service was due to illegal strike by the

Bank employees, the bank has not been negligent in discharge of its duties.

The Court observed that even if any loss or damage was caused to any

depositor but it was not caused due to negligence of the Bank then no claim of

damages under the consumer protection Act was maintainable.

5.5.1.5. To Remove the Defects in Goods or Deficiencies in Service

Clause (e) of section 14 (1) provides that where the Districts Forum

finds that the goods or the services complained against suffer from any defect

or deficiency as the case may be, it may direct the opposite party to remove

the defect or deficiency in question. This provision has been inserted by the

Amendment Act 1993. Prior to the amendments, there was no specific power

to this effect. But now the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies have the

power to order for removal of defects in goods or deficiencies in the services

in question.

5.5.1.6. Discontinuance of any unfair or restrictive trade practice

38 Supra Note 25, pp. 477.

169
Clause (f) in section 14 (1) has been inserted by the Consumer

Protection (Amendment) Act, 1993. According to this provision, the District

Forum may direct the opposite party to discontinue the unfair trade practice

or the restrictive trade practice or not to repeat it. It means that the practice

shall not only be discontinued forthwith but shall also not be repeated in

future.

5.5.1.7. Stop offering hazardous goods

Prior to the 1993 amendments, there was no provision in the Act to

prevent the sale of goods likely to endanger the life or health of public.

To remove this difficulty, the Amendment Act, 1993 inserted clause (g) in

section 14 (1) of the Act, which provides that the District Forum may by order

direct the opposite party not to offer the hazardous goods for sale. It

may be noted that the term hazardous goods has not been defined in the Act

and therefore, the District Forum, the State Commission and the national

Commission may face difficulty while invoking clause (g) of section 14 (1) of

the Act. However, it appears that it would include those goods which are

likely to endanger the life, health or property of public.

5.5.1.8. To withdraw hazardous goods

Under clause (h) of section 14 (1) of the Act, the District Forum may

direct the opposite party to withdraw the hazardous goods from being

offered for sale. Prior to the 1993 amendments, there was no such power

conferred upon the District Forum.

170
The amendment act, 1993 has conferred this additional power to the

district forum with a view to protect the public in general, and consumer in

particular from these goods which are to likely to endanger the life or health

of public.

5.5.1.9. To cease manufacture of hazardous goods

Clause (ha) in section 14 (1) has been inserted by the Amendment Act,

2002. Under this clause, the District Forum may issue orders directing the

opposite party to cease manufacture of hazardous goods and to desist from

offering services which are hazardous in nature.

Prior to 2002 amendments the powers of the district forum were

confined, inter alia, to pass order not to after the goods for sale or to withdraw

the hazards goods, from being offered for sale but now the power extends to

cease manufacture of hazards goods and to desist from offering services

which are hazards in nature, these provisions will provide better protection to

the consumers against hazards goods.

5.5.1.10. To pay for loss or injury suffered by consumers not identifiable

Clause (hb) inserted in section 14 (1) by the Amendment Act, 2002,

provides that District Forum may direct the opposite party to pay such sum as

may be determined by it if it is of the opinion that loss or injury has been

suffered by a large number of consumers who are not identifiable

conveniently, however, the minimum amount of sum so payable shall not be

less than five percent of the value of the such defective goods sold or services

provided, as the care may be, to such consumers. Further, the amount so

171
obtained shall be credited in favour of such person and utilised in such

manner as may be prescribed.

5.5.1.11. To issue Corrective Advertisement

The Amendment Act, 2002 has inserted a new clause (hc) in section 14

(1) of the Act. According to this clause, the District Forum may direct the

opposite party to issue corrective advertisement to neutralize the effect of

misleading advertisement at the cost of the opposite party responsible for

issuing such misleading advertisement.

5.5.1.12. To provide Adequate Costs to Parties.

Prior to the 1993 amendments, there was no specific power with the

District Forum to award the costs to complainants in deserving cases.

The Amendment Act, 1993 inserted clause (i) in section 14(1) of the Act, which

provides that the District Forum may award the adequate costs to parties.

This is an important clause which has been inserted in section 14(1) to enable

the District Consumer Forum to award costs to the parties.

5.6. Some Important Decided Case Laws of District Consumer Forum,

Bellary

1. Sri. B. Basvaraj v. The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance

Company Ltd. Bellary. 39

39 Source: Records of CDRF, Bellary the Complaint was disposed on 26/11/2011

172
The complaint was filed by the Basavaraj against the respondent u/s 12

of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for claiming insurance money for the

deficiency of service of the respondent ordered for Rs. 1000/- towards cost of

proceedings.

The complaint in brief is that the complainant is the owner of the

vehicle bearing Regn. No. KA. 34/M-8427 which was insured with the

respondent's insurance company valid from 18.03.2010 to 17.03.2011 when the

complainant and his family members while proceeding to Siridi Sai Baba

Dhaba, on the way they parked their vehicle near Dhaba to have lunch and

after having lunch when they come to the spot where the vehicle was parked

it was found that some unknown lorry came in reverse direction and hit the

complainant's vehicle due to which the front portion of the complainant’s

vehicle was severely damaged. This matter was intimated to the respondent’s

insurance company on 26.01.2011 and a claim was made for the damage

caused to the complainant's vehicle and left the vehicle for repair at D.S.K.

Toyota Motor Ltd. Sambhapur, Kolhapur District who issued the estimation

of the cost of the repair which was Rs. 2,11,053/-. After repair the said vehicle

was delivered to the complainant. The complainant had spent Rs.

1,68,160/- for the repair of his vehicle. In the claim form the complainant by

oversight had mentioned the date of the accident as on 28.01.2011 instead of

26.01.2011. The said mistake was not intentional one, the respondent's

insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant as per

endorsement dated: 26.11.2011. Hence the complaint for total compensation of

173
Rs. 1,68,160/-.

The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.

The complainant is entitled to recover sum of Rs. 1,68,160/- with interest @6%

p.a. from the date of the complaint i.e., 01.10.2011 till realisation, from the

respondent. The complainant is also entitled to recover sum of Rs.1000/-

towards cost of the proceedings from the respondent. The respondent is

directed to the pay the entire amount ordered to the complainant, within two

months from the date of this order.

2. Sri M. Srinivasulu v. The Post Master, Head Post Office, Bellary. 40

The complaint was filed by Srinivasulu against the respondent

(121/2013), u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for claming

Rs. 80,000/- money for deficiency in postal service of the respondents.

The complaint in brief is that the complainant intending to deposit it

with the respondent Rs. 80,000/- to his SB Account asked his wife give the

same to G. Manikappa who is a small savings agent to remit it and

accordingly, she gave one bundle of currency notes to him which had actually

Rs. 90,000/- in it. On coming to know about that said mistake the same was

informed to the said agent who in turn informed it to officials of the

respondent, the complainant requested by filing an application to the that

effect on 29.09.2012 to the respondent to refund Rs. 10,000/- paid in execs for

which replay was given stating that the matter enquired and admitting the

excess amount received in the counter, he refused to pay the same by stating

40 Source: Records of CDRF, Bellary the Complaint was disposed on 2/1/2014

174
that the said amount doesn’t pertain to the complainant. But no information is

given by the respondent as to whom that excess amount belongs to and the

said matter is being kept secret. Therefore, the complainant seeking the relief

prayed for.

The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.

The complainant is entitled to recover Rs. 10,000/- with interest @6% p.a.

from 4.9.2012 till its realisation from the respondent. The complainant is also

entitled to recover Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings from the

respondent. The respondent is liable to the pay above said amount to the

complainant within two months from the date the order.

3. M/S Rajyog Fashoins v Seena, ANL Parcel Service Agent, Bellary. 41

The complaint was filed by Jaisingh Raj Purohith against the

respondent u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for claiming the

compensation in deficiency in services of the respondent and also

compensation for the mental harassment and cost of the proceedings.

The complaint in brief is that the complainant is engaged in

manufacturing of readymade garments and Jaisingh Raj Purohith is

proprietor of the said firm and he is managing the affairs of the same.

On 30.8.2011 the complaint dispatched readymade garments throw the

respondents transport company with the No. 45240751/1 to their customer

Excellence Gents and Kids Wear Miryalagurda of the Nelgonda District,

Andhra Pradesh. But after few days informed to the complainant that they

41 Source: Records of CDRF, Bellary the Complaint was disposed on 27/3/2014

175
had not received the consignment sent to them throw the respondents

Transport Company. The complainant informed the same to the respondent

and issued letters to them as well as legal notice in this regard.

The respondent on receipt of the same undertook to pay the amount of the

consignment but still this day they have not paid the same. The act of the

respondents amounts to deficiency service. Therefore, the complainant

seeking relief’s as prayed for. The Consumer Forum Bellary held that the

complainant is partly allowed. The complainant is entitled to recover

Rs. 38,005/- towards value of the goods from the respondents.

The complaint is also entitled to recover some of the Rs. 1,000/- towards cost

of the proceedings from the respondents.

4. Sri. Ravindra Domal v The Principal, Bellary Educational Trust, P.U.

College, Bellary. 42

The complainant filed a complaint against the respondent u/s 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The complaint in brief is that the complainant is the permanent

resident of Bidar. He intending to admit his twin sons by name Sagar and

Sachin in the Respondent College on seeing an advertisement in the news

paper, obtained two prospectus by paying Rs. 250/- each and thereafter paid

Rs. 4000/-as provisional admission fee to the respondent on 21-05.2011 and

then got his twin sons admitted to the respondent’s Pre-University by College

paying one year total fee of Rs. 62,050/- on 15-06-2011. After

42 http://164.100, 72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/1853 1204 204 121613, 50 698 CC-22, 2012


pdf.the complaint was disposed on 18/3/14

176
admission, the complainant's sons hardly stayed in the respondent’s college

for 06 days as they are alone in the Respondent’s hostel and as they could not

reside in Bellary as its climatic conditions is not suitable to both the children,

hence both had returned to Bidar. The complaint was constrained to write a

letter to the respondent requesting to return the fee paid by him and also

issue the transfer certificate of his two sons. On receipt of the said letter, the

respondent returned the transfer certificate, but failed to return the amount

paid by the complainant. The respondent is bound to return tuition fee and

mess charges for a period of one year. Non refund of the amount by

respondent amounts to deficiency in service, hence the complainant allowed

for refund of Rs. 62,050/-towards fees paid, with interest @18p.a., and Rs.

10,000/- compensation towards mental agony and deficiency in service.

The complaint filed by the complainant is entitled to recover a sum of

Rs. 58,000/- from the respondent. The complainant also entitled to recover a

sum of Rs. 1000/-towards cost of the proceedings, from the respondent.

The respondent is directed to pay the entire amount to the complainant,

within two months from the date of this order.

5. Sri. D.S. Badrinath v The Manager, Diwakar Road Lines, Bellary. 43

The complaint was filed by Badrinatha against the respondent

(26/2014), u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for claiming

compensation for deficiency in service of the respondent and also

compensation for mental harassment and hardship undergone by the

43 Source: Records of CDRF, Bellary the Complaint was disposed on 18/3/2014

177
complainants.

Brief facts of the case of the complainant is that: the complaint

purchased four tickets from the respondents travel company on 19.12.2013 to

travel from Bellary to Hyderabad in their Bus and accordingly the

complainant and his family member travelled from Bellary to Hyderabad on

the same day. When the bus reached Shodnagar the driver instructed all the

passengers to get down there as the bus cannot go to the Hyderabad as there

was RTO checking. The complainant questioned the bus driver in this regard

and refused to get down from the bus. At that time the driver informed the

complainant that at Kachiguda office the manager will settle the issue. It was

about 4.30.am and atmosphere was very chill. Therefore, the complainant

made separate arrangement to travel from Shodnagar to Hyderabad in a taxi

by paying Rs. 3,000/- and reached Hyderabad at about 7.00 a.m. Due to the

above circumstances, the complainant suffered mental agony and loss. This

amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents travel

company. Therefore, the complainant sought for relief.

The district consumer forum has allowed the complaint filed by

complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the

respondent partly with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover sum of

Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for exchanging service, from the

respondent. The respondent liable to the pay the above said amount to the

complainant within two months from the date of order.

178
6. Sri Murali Mohan Reddy v The Proprietor Om Enterprises Bellary and

Others. 44

The complaint filed by complainant against the Respondents u/s. 12 of

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The complaint in brief can be described of that on 21/5/2011 the

complainant purchased Kenster cooler under customer No.

160311060500132313 main motor No. C4 9704-C by paying Rs. 7,300/- vide

cash Bill No-7741 from the Respondent No.1 which is manufactured by the

respondent No. 2. The respondents have given one year warranty to the said

Air Cooler. The said air cooler worked for couple of days and thereafter it

failed to provide cool air and the main motor has been burst immediately

The complainant brought it to the notice of the Respondent No.1 and

requested to effect repair who replaced some part and he charged Rs. 200/-

though it was within warranty period. Once again the said cooler started

giving same problem within 15-20 days after its repair. The said air cooler

having manufacturing defect the complainant visited the respondent No. 1's

Shop requesting him to rectify the defects in the air cooler. But he neither

rectified the defects nor replaced the defective parts. The respondents are

duty bound to replace the damaged part free of cost. The respondents

postponed the same on one or other pretext, which amount to deficiency in

service on the part of the respondents. Therefore, the complainant got issued

legal Notice dated 5/3/2012 to the respondent for which the respondent

44 http://164.100, 72.12/ncdrcrep/1853 0120 7051 51835751 CC-56, 2012


pdf.the complaint was disposed on 30/6/2012

179
never replied. Hence, the complainant sought direction to the respondents to

give a new defect free air cooler of some brand or else to pay the cost of it Rs.

7,300/- and to pay Rs. 200/- towards replacement charges, Rs. 2,000/-

towards mental agony and deficiency in service.

The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.

The respondents jointly and severely are directed to replace the defective

parts of the air cooler of the complainant free of cost and to pay Rs. 1,000/-

towards deficiency in service and Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings

to the complainant, within two months from the date of the order.

7. Sri. M.P. Kotresh v Samsung India Pvt. Ltd. 45

The complaint filed by the Kotresh against the respondents u/s. 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased

P3 100 Silver Colour Tab of Samsung on 19.11.2012 from the respondent

No. 2 for Rs. 19,500/-. As per the specification details, the unit consists of

16GB internal memory, external memory can be extend upto 32GM, 7

Display screen, 4000 mah inbuilt battery,1GB RAM with operating system as

android ICS. After three months of its purchase, the unit started to show

defects. The complainant through one Prabhakar got checked it-up with the

Respondent No. 2 and the defects were removed. But on 25.2.2013 when the

complainant noticed new defects, the same was sent through Prabakar to the

Respondent No. 2 and as per the instruction given the said Prabhakar has

45 Source: Records of CDRF, Bellary the Complaint was disposed on 27/3/2014

180
taken it to authorised service centre at Bellary Viz. PAAN enterprises and

reported the complaint regarding network, Bluetooth not working, touch

screens slow and the same were recorded in the network order. The unit was

serviced and returned on 01.03.13, when the complainant started using it he

noticed that the memory which was 16 GB has been reduced 4 GB, Bluetooth,

connecting is not restored. Immediately the customer service centre was

contacted on its toll free number and it was informed that when unit was

given for service on 25.2.2013 the motherboard has been replaced, it could be

the result and asked to wait for same time so that the complainant would be

informed to approached service centre at Bellary after suitable motherboard is

sent. On 19.03.2013 the complainant approached the PAAN Electronics,

Bellary. Since the unit started heating up and the same came to be rectified

immediately. When the complainant informed about the reduction of memory

status to 4 GB, it was informed that compatible mother board is not received

from the Company. Further the complainant made repeated calls to the

customer service centre and made enquiry regarding the increase of memory

status, the same is not being provided on the ground of that suitable and

compatible the motherboard is not available. Further, when the

Respondent No. 2 was approached for replacement with new unit. It was

informed that the same model is out of stock and is not in a position to replace

with new one. When the complainant asked for replacement of P3100 Model

and is prepared to pay the difference in the price. The Respondent No. 2 is not

conceding and asked to contact the company itself informed that he has

181
nothing to do with service after sale.

The District Consumer Forum, Bellary held that, the complaint filed by

the complainant is partly allowed against the Respondent No. 2 the

complainant is entitled to the recover sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards

compensation for deficiency in service, from the respondent no. 2.

The complainant is also entitled to recover sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of

the proceedings from the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 is the liable

pay the said amount to the complainant within two months from the date of

the order. The complaint filed by the complainant as against respondent No. 1

is dismissed on the grounds of the deficiency in service.

8. Mr. K. Mohan v. M/s Virgo Motors Pvt. Ltd. Authorised Dealers of

Honda Motors Cycle and Scooter, Bellary. 46

The complaint was filed by Mr. Mohan against the respondents

u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The complaint in brief is that the complainant purchased Honda

Unicorn Motor cycle from the respondent no. 2 which was manufactured by

the respondent No. 1 for Rs. 81,000/- on 16.09.2013. However, the

complainant noticed that said vehicle was not smooth and was having

hardness in driving with clutch and gear problems. The vehicle was not

having pickup in load gear even at full accelerator, on reporting the same the

technician of the respondent No. 2 stated that the vehicle being new on using

the same it will all right. On 23.9.2013 all of a sudden mechanics of the

46 Source: Records of CDRF, Bellary the Complaint was disposed on 10/2/2014

182
respondent No. 2 stated that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect and

suffers from clutch and gear system problems and they cannot assured its

smooth working even on rectification, immediately the complainant

requested the respondent No. 2 to replace the vehicle. But it was not replaced.

Due to delivery of defective vehicle the complainant suffered mental agony

and he was unable to use the vehicle. This amounted to deficiency in service

on the part of the respondents. Hence the complainant sought relief.

The District Consumer Forum held that the complaint filed by the

complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.

9. Sri. Gaddam Srinivasulu v Sri. S. Abdul Rehaman and others. 47

The complainant filed the complaint against the respondents u/s 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

The complaint in brief is that the complainant went to the shop of the

respondents on 3.5.2010 and gave a 22 carat gold chain weighing 7.800 grams

along with Rs. 22,270/- towards additional 12.800 grams of the gold and Rs.

300/- towards copper to be added to make a new chain and the respondents

received the same from the complainant and gave the new chain to the

compliant on 25.5.2010. The complainant took it and kept it at his house. After

that when the complainant wearing the said chain went for a function the

hook of the chain was cut and when the complainant took it to a gold smith

for repair of the hook it was revealed that said chain is not of gold and it is a

rolled gold (Khage Bangar). Thereby, the respondents cheated the

47 Source: Records of CDRF, Bellary the Complaint was disposed on 30/6/2012

183
complainant by giving the said rolled gold chain to him. When the

complainant contacted the respondent in this regard and informed about it

the respondent told that the said chain does not belong to their shop and

threatened the complainant. Therefore, the complainant sought relief.

The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.

The complainant entitled to recover Rs. 36,142/- from the respondents.

The complainant is entitled to recover Rs. 1,000/- towards compensation for

mental agony. The complainant is also entitled to recover Rs. 1,000/- towards

cost of the proceedings. The respondents are directed to comply with the

above said order within two months from the date of this order. On receipt of

the amount ordered from the respondents the complainant is directed to hand

over the chain in question (involved in this case) to the respondents.

10. Sri. K. Venugopal v The Tahasildar, Bellary. 48

The complaint filed by the complainant against the Respondent u/s 12

of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The complaint in brief is that the complainant preferred an application

under Right to Information Act before the respondent on 28-07-2011

along with the postal order for Rs. 20/-and asked for the documents

pertaining to the land bearing sy. no 1065 measuring 10.26 acres situated at

Bellary rural taluka. The documents sought for are form No. 7, Tribunal

Proceedings, Statement of parties, notices, order, form No. 10 and any other

48 http://164.100, 72.12/ncdrcrep/1853 0120 7051 51835751 CC-56, 2012


pdf.the complaint was disposed on 16/5/2012

184
documents. The respondent received the said application and failed to

provide documents sought for within 30 days as stipulated under Right to

Information Act. In this regard, the complainant approached the Respondent

several times made requests. But the respondent is not provided the

information. He reliably learnt that the Respondent has violated the

provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The complaint is having right to

receive the information sought for, as per the Right to Information Act and

the respondent has failed to provide the same. The act of the respondent

amounts to deficiency in service. The respondent wilfully and intentionally

did not provide information. Hence, the complaint for total compensation of

Rs. 47,000/- towards deficiency in service, mental agony and miscellaneous

expenses.

The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.

The complainant is entitled to recover sum of Rs. 500/- towards deficiency in

service and Rs.500/- towards cost of the proceedings from the respondent.

The respondent directed to pay the entire amount ordered to the complainant,

within two months from the date of the order.

185