Ernakulam consumer panel orders retailer to pay compensation for delivering faulty phone
The compensation included ₹55,000 that the consumer had paid for the phone, ₹10,000 towards misrepresentation and causing mental agony to him, and ₹5,000 as the cost of proceedings.
The order dated April 30, 2025 issued by the panel led by D.B. Binu, president of the panel, said that the online retailer had allegedly showcased the mobile as a brand-new smartphone with warranty. Instead, they delivered an old, used, and defective handset of the 2021 model without accessories.
The authorised service centre had informed the complainant that there was no valid warranty for the device. The online retailer later admitted that they dealt with refurbished units, which was not disclosed at the time of the sale, it said.
The panel found that a refund was not made despite the consumer returning the device and issuing repeated reminders. The non-delivery of the promised product and failure to refund the amount despite the return of goods amount to deficiency in service under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The opposite parties consciously refrained from filing their version even after serving the notice. Thus, the allegations stand unchallenged, according to the order.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
14 hours ago
- Time of India
Hair treatment fails, Ghaziabad parlour told to refund Rs 22,000
Ghaziabad: The district consumer disputes redressal commission (DCDRC) on Aug 13 directed N Beauty Bar, a Kavinagar-based beauty parlour, to refund Rs 22,000 to a customer for a hair removal treatment that failed to deliver results. President DCDRC Praveen Kumar Jain and member RP Singh ruled that the parlour, through its manager, should return the entire sum taken for the service within 45 days and also pay a penalty of Rs 5,000 for the mental agony and litigation cost. An interest rate of 6% PA will be levied in case of delay in payment. Lohia Nagar resident Jaivik Goyal approached the commission on April 4, 2024, with a complaint against the parlour from where she booked a package for hair removal laser services, scheduled in eight sittings. You Can Also Check: Noida AQI | Weather in Noida | Bank Holidays in Noida | Public Holidays in Noida | Gold Rates Today in Noida | Silver Rates Today in Noida "I attended the first session on July 24, 2023, followed by further sessions on Aug 7 and 26, Sept 8, Nov 3, Dec 18, 23, and 29, and paid in total Rs 22,000 for the services on these dates. According to the dermatologist, I should have got results within 3-4 weeks, but the package did not work as desired," she said. The commission issued notice to the manager of N Beauty Bar and an opportunity to appear in person or through a counsel, but in the absence of any response, heard the matter ex-parte. Referring to the documents on record, the commission ruled that since the customer was not provided with services that could produce desired results as per the claim of the beauty and personal care centre, it amounted to a deficiency in services. "Under the Consumer Protection Act, the service provider is liable to be charged with a penalty for deficiency of service and should also return the money charged from the customer," the commission ruled. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Time of India
15 hours ago
- Time of India
Dealer fined for selling defective cellphone
Dharwad: The Dharwad District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has rapped a cellphone manufactuing company for selling a defective handset to a customer. Neeta, a resident of Karwar Road in Hubballi, had purchased a Samsung cellphone for Rs 20,300 from the authorised Samsung dealer Sri Tirumala Tele World, Hubballi. Within 2-3 days of purchase, the gadget started developing problems such as hanging and display issues. Neeta told the dealer about the issue and sought a replacement. However, the dealer refused, even though the customer had not used it further, and had kept it with her in the same condition. With no other option left, Neeta sent a legal notice. But even then, the dealer allegedly ignored her grievance. Stating that such conduct amounted to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, Neeta filed a case before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. After a detailed inquiry, the commission headed by retired judge Ishappa Bhute and member Vishalakshi Bolashetti observed that documentary evidence clearly showed the phone had developed hanging and display defects within 2-3 days of purchase, which amounted to a manufacturing defect. The commission further noted the complainant had purchased the mobile for Rs 20,300 for her daily use and convenience, but it became non-functional within just 2-3 days, and the opposite party neither repaired it nor replaced it. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 20 Highest Paying Degrees For 2025 Best Paying Degrees | Search Ads Learn More Undo This amounted to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. Considering all these aspects, the commission directed the company to repair the complainant's cellphone within one month of the order, failing which, it has to refund Rs 20,300 with 8% interest to the complainant. Additionally, the company should pay Rs 25,000 as compensation for inconvenience and mental agony, and pay Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs, the commission ordered. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
Legally entitled, systemically blocked
By Priyam Sharma Author's Note: This piece is a system-level observation to explain to the stakeholders how platform interfaces, often designed for efficiency can quietly reshape or suppress legal entitlements. While not every misstep is a violation, repeatable design patterns that restrict lawful remedies should raise red flags for both product and legal teams. The Interface Is Now the First Regulator In the digital economy, the first point of contact in case of a grievance is the systems regulator, even before human interface. Interfaces have become the new regulators, quietly mediating access to rights with every prompt, pop-up, or delay. Whether a user gets a refund, completes a booking, or raises a complaint is no longer a matter of law on paper , but actually based on the input of the design in action . Take, for instance, a routine but legally protected scenario: returning a defective product. Under the Consumer Protection Act , 2019, ('CPA') a consumer is explicitly entitled to a monetary refund in case of defective goods or deficient services, as codified in Sections 2(10) (defect), 2(47) (unfair trade practice), and Sections 85 and 86 (liability of e-commerce entities). Yet on a major e-commerce platform, this statutory right was not denied outright, it was diluted through design. The interface highlighted an instant store-credit option, while the cash-refund route was buried behind multiple steps and longer timelines. The cash-back route was technically available, but it lived deep in a secondary menu, required extra taps, and carried longer processing times. Nothing in the interface said ' cash refund unavailable ,' yet every aspect of the journey steered users toward the platform-preferred remedy. In practice, a buyer in a hurry or under confusion may never reach the option the law guarantees. The law remained intact in the Terms of Service , but the user journey told a different story. This wasn't a denial by policy, it was a denial by design. Under the CPA, users are entitled to a monetary refund in the event of defective goods or deficient services (Sections 2(10), 2(47)). When a platform surfaces store credit as the immediate option, while burying the refund route behind multiple steps or longer timelines, this may qualify as a deficiency in service under Section 2(11) of the CPA. The law doesn't merely guarantee the outcome, it also expects that the process for obtaining that outcome be reasonable, accessible, and fair. Further, Section 2(47) of the CPA defines unfair trade practices to include any conduct that distorts or suppresses consumer choice. If the platform's interface presents the lawful remedy in a way that is hidden, delayed, or less rewarding while steering the user toward a platform preferred option it may not just be a design issue. It becomes a matter of legal compliance and under Section 85 of the CPA, liability can attach directly, not just to the seller or service provider when such shortcoming is attributable to the platform including its automated processes. The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 reinforce this principle. Rule 5 mandates that platforms must disclose refund and cancellation policies clearly and accurately not just in legalese buried deep in terms and conditions, but in the actual flow of the user journey. A design that obfuscates the lawful refund route while promoting non-mandated options (like instant store credit) may fall afoul of this rule. System 'Errors' That Feel Like Policy Consider another scenario, this time on a travel membership platform. A user tried to book a resort stay. well within their annual quota and with all fees prepaid. But the booking was blocked by a pop-up citing 'pending dues.' In reality, there were none. The company later admitted it was a system glitch. But the denial lasted several days, enforced not by a human decision, but by an automated interface with no escalation path or override mechanism. To a technologist, this may look like a backend error. To the user, it felt like a breach of contract and in the eyes of the law, the impact matters: a lawful benefit was denied based on incorrect system behaviour. Importantly, the Information Technology Act , 2000 (' IT Act ') and the Intermediary Guidelines Rules, 2021 impose obligations on digital intermediaries beyond content moderation. Section 79(1) of the IT Act provides a conditional safe harbour for intermediaries, shielding them from liability for third-party content. However, Section 79(3) of the IT Act withdraws this protection if the intermediary knowingly hosts or publishes unlawful or misleading content. These legal standards, taken together, highlight a critical shift: compliance is no longer just about what the policy says, but how the system behaves. Whether rights are exercised or suppressed now depends as much on interface design as on statutory text. For legal, product, and design teams alike, this means ensuring that the systemic implementation of rights especially in refund journeys, error messaging, and booking flows is as compliant as the written terms. Because when the interface simulates non-compliance, it may very well become non-compliance in the eyes of the law. Importantly, a single mistake is not a breach. But when the same friction is built into the interface repeatedly and in one direction , it can no longer be explained away as error. It starts to look like engineered bias. From a regulatory standpoint, interface design is not neutral. If it shapes or delays access to a user's legal remedies, it may violate the statute. Why General Counsel Must Look Beyond the Terms Page For in-house legal teams, especially in product-heavy companies, these patterns should be viewed as early compliance signals . If an interface suppresses or delays access to a lawful remedy even subtly the risk is not just regulatory but reputational. The problem does not always lie in the policy document. It lies in how the policy performs on-screen . A system-generated pop-up denying access based on flawed logic is no less impactful than a miswritten clause. Compliance cannot remain a static audit of backend documents. It must now extend to user journey audits, mock refund flows, and interface walkthroughs because what the user sees and clicks is what the law will examine. Design is Law in Practice Good design shapes experience. But when it shapes access to rights, it becomes a legal instrument. What appears faster, easier, or more rewarding in the User Interface becomes the de facto policy regardless of what the terms say. Transparency is not an optional virtue it's a foundation of legal entitlement and when design interferes with that transparency, the harm is real, even if the policy is sound. (The author is an advocate practising before the Bombay High Court (Ex Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Ex Crawford Bayley).
