&w=3840&q=100)
CCPA issues notices over illegal walkie-talkie sales on e-commerce sites
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) on Friday issued 13 notices to several digital marketplaces for listing and selling walkie-talkies without proper frequency disclosure, licensing information, or Equipment Type Approval (ETA), which it said violated the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The move comes amid rising tensions at the India–Pakistan border. 'Walkie-talkies are being sold on e-commerce platforms without mandatory and clear disclosures regarding the requirement of a wireless operating licence or compliance with applicable laws. The product listings for walkie-talkies do not specify whether the device requires a licence from the concerned authority for use,' the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution said in a statement on Friday evening.
The e-commerce platforms include Amazon, Flipkart, Meesho, OLX, Facebook, and Indiamart, among others, it added.
'The omission of details such as frequency range, licensing obligations under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, and the Use of Low Power, Very Low Power Short Range Radio Frequency Devices (Exemption from Licensing Requirement) Rules, 2018, as well as the potential legal consequences of unauthorised use, misleads consumers into believing that the devices are freely operable by the general public,' the ministry stated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi HC refuses relief to man given 182-yr term for defrauding 344 homebuyers
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant relief to a 75-year-old former director of a property firm facing an extraordinary 182-year prison sentence for defrauding 344 homebuyers, upholding the authority of a consumer forum to impose multiple consecutive jail terms in a landmark case. In a verdict delivered on May 30 and released Monday, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed the plea of Rajender Mittal, a director of Tirupati Builders Pvt Ltd, who had sought modification of the sentence imposed by a district consumer court. The court in 1995 had convicted Mittal for failing to refund booking amounts collected from buyers promised plots in a proposed residential colony—Tirupati Township—on Delhi's Baghpat Road. The Tirupati Township Plot Holders Association, representing over 300 homebuyers, accused Mittal and his co-director Rakesh Kumar Sharma of collecting ₹90.79 lakh for plots that were never delivered. On March 13, 1995, the district consumer forum ruled in the buyers' favour, directing the directors to refund the money with 18% annual interest, along with ₹20,000 in compensation and ₹500 in litigation costs to each complainant. The Supreme Court upheld the order in July 2011. The two directors, however, failed to comply with the refund order. In February 1998, the consumer forum invoked Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which allows imprisonment for up to three years for non-compliance with forum orders. The forum sentenced Mittal and Sharma to one year of simple imprisonment in 20 complaints and six months in each of the remaining 324. Crucially, it directed the sentences to run consecutively—resulting in a combined term of 182 years. The sentence was suspended for three months to give the duo a final chance to comply. In 2003, the Delhi state consumer commission upheld this decision. Praying for his immediate release from prison, Mittal on December 1, 2020, challenged the sentence in the high court, arguing that since all complaints stemmed from the same transaction and were decided through a common order, the punishments should run concurrently. That would have limited his prison term to one year. He called the forum's decision 'excessive, arbitrary and illegal,' citing that the forum could not go beyond the maximum three-year sentence outlined in the Consumer Protection Act. Mittal also pointed to his incarceration in a separate criminal case. Arrested in 2016 after being declared a proclaimed offender, he was convicted in 2019 for cheating, criminal conspiracy, and criminal breach of trust. He was sentenced to five years for cheating, three years for breach of trust, and two years for conspiracy, with sentences running concurrently. He claimed to have already served over seven years in that case. But the high court was unmoved. Representing the Centre, advocate Udit Vaghela argued that the 1995 consumer forum order had attained finality after the Supreme Court's 2011 ruling and could not be reopened. Justice Krishna rejected Mittal's petition, ruling that the sentences were lawful and enforceable under Section 27, and since they were imposed for default of compliance rather than for criminal wrongdoing, they could not be made to run concurrently. She underlined that the punishment was not punitive, but a civil measure aimed at compelling compliance with the forum's directions. 'These sentences being for default of fine, cannot under the law be directed to run concurrently as it is not punitive in nature but only intended to ensure compliance,' held the judge, emphasising that no direction as sought by the petitioner could be issued under such circumstances. However, the court left a narrow window open: Mittal, the court said, was free to approach the district forum afresh on grounds of financial incapacity and seek a modified sentence there.
Fibre2Fashion
2 days ago
- Fibre2Fashion
Indian govt urges e-commerce platforms to eliminate dark patterns
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has issued an advisory to all e-commerce platforms, urging them to take immediate steps to ensure their platforms do not engage in deceptive or unfair trade practices commonly referred to as dark patterns. The CCPA has advised e-commerce platforms to audit and eliminate dark patterns within three months, promoting fair practices and consumer trust. Violators face notices under the 2023 guidelines. A Joint Working Group will monitor compliance and raise consumer awareness. Thirteen types of dark patterns have been officially defined by the government. All platforms have been advised to conduct self-audits within three months from the date of the advisory to identify such practices and implement corrective measures. Based on the self-audit findings, platforms are also encouraged to provide self-declarations affirming that they do not engage in any dark patterns. These declarations are intended to promote a fair digital ecosystem and strengthen consumer trust in e-commerce platforms, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution said in a press release. The CCPA has also issued notices to certain platforms found to be in violation of the Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023. The authority continues to closely monitor compliance with these guidelines and has observed several instances of dark patterns across e-commerce sites. Platforms are, therefore, advised to avoid using manipulative design interfaces that mislead consumers or influence their decision-making unfairly. To further this initiative, the Department of Consumer Affairs, government of India, has constituted a Joint Working Group (JWG) comprising representatives from relevant ministries, regulators, voluntary consumer organisations, and national law universities. The JWG has been tasked with identifying violations of dark patterns on e-commerce platforms and regularly sharing findings with the Department of Consumer Affairs. It will also recommend suitable awareness programmes to educate consumers about such practices. As part of its broader strategy to enhance consumer protection in the digital era, the government of India had issued the guidelines in 2023, identifying and defining 13 types of dark patterns: false urgency, basket sneaking, confirm shaming, forced action, subscription trap, interface interference, bait and switch, drip pricing, disguised advertisements, nagging, trick wording, SaaS billing, and rogue malwares. Fibre2Fashion News Desk (HU)
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Indian Express
‘If strictly veg, why order from non-veg restaurant?': Consumer forum dismisses Dadar couple's complaint over chicken momos
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Mumbai has dismissed a complaint seeking compensation for the delivery of chicken momos to a couple who allegedly ordered the vegetarian version of the snack, observing that if they were 'strictly vegetarian', they need not have ordered food from a restaurant that also delivers non-vegetarian meals. The Commission added that the complainants failed to provide proof that they had ordered vegetarian momos and pointed out that the offer mentioned both 'veg-non-veg'. 'If the complainants were strictly vegetarian and the non-veg food hurts their religious sentiments, then why they opted for order from a restaurant which was delivering both non-veg and vegetarian food instead of ordering the food from a restaurant which was exclusively vegetarian and served only and only vegetarian food,' the bench comprising president Pradeep Kadu and member Gauri Kapse said in the order on May 13. The couple from Dadar had approached the Commission in the district in 2020, stating that while they had ordered a 'Steam Darjeeling Momo Combo' from the outlet Wow Momos, and had specified their preference for vegetarian food, they were served chicken momos. They had paid Rs 120 for the combo, which included an aerated beverage, and sought compensation for the 'mental trauma' and 'emotional distress', as their religious feelings were hurt, alleging negligence by the eatery. Wow Momos denied the allegations and said the couple had ordered a non-vegetarian combo, as is evident from their order invoice. They were also given a refund, which they had accepted, and hence they do not fall under the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, it was submitted on behalf of the firm. The Commission said no evidence was produced to show that the couple had ordered vegetarian momos, and the photographs they submitted as evidence did not indicate what kind of momos were delivered. 'If non-veg order had been delivered to the complainants instead of veg order, then it ought to have contained only non-veg pieces. A prudent person would be able to distinguish between veg and non-veg food before consuming it… The complainants have produced a photo of the offer board which did not clearly indicate whether the Steam Darjeeling Momos were veg or non-veg,' the bench said. 'However, the board did mention 'veg-non-veg', at the bottom suggesting that the restaurant did provide some indication of the food type,' the commission stated, adding that the complainants should have been aware of the possibility that non-veg options were available. The complainants also said that they were performing a puja and other religious ceremonies at the time, but the Commission stated that no proof was given to substantiate this claim, nor was the name of any pujari disclosed.
