Latest news with #DistrictConsumerDisputesRedressalCommission
The Print
4 days ago
- Business
- The Print
Consumer panel asks Apple, Croma to refund customer's iPhone cost over microphone defect
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (Suburban) held that the 'manufacturer (Apple) merely mentioning certain unauthorized modification or damage in hardware cannot be the correct resolution' for the customer's grievance. Both the manufacturer and the seller are 'jointly and severally liable for the defective product', the commission said in the order passed earlier this month, as the two companies failed to resolve the defect in the device purchased by the customer (now deceased). Mumbai, Jul 20 (PTI) A consumer commission here has directed Apple India and Croma to refund an i-Phone cost of Rs 65,264 to the legal heirs of a customer for failing to resolve a microphone defect in the device, holding the two companies deficient in service. It further ruled that the seller (Croma) too cannot escape liability merely by stating the 'defect is attributable to the manufacturer'. 'Once the product was sold through their outlet, they assumed responsibility for ensuring that the product was free from defects and serviceable,' the commission noted. It said the 'principle of vicarious liability squarely applies', as the seller stands in a position of trust and derives commercial benefit from the sale. The complainant purchased an iPhone 11 for Rs 65,264 from a Croma store in Mumbai on June 4, 2021. Shortly after the purchase, the device developed an issue as the speakerphone function was not working during calls, with specifically 'no speech from mic'. The complainant approached Apple's authorised service centre, but repairs were denied on the grounds of 'unauthorized modifications in the device,' rendering it ineligible for warranty service. Despite repeated complaints and emails, the opposite parties failed to address the grievance, following which the complainant approached the commission. During the course of proceeding, the customer passed away, but the complaint was continued by his legal heirs. The Apple India Private Limited, in its response, admitted the purchase and the issue with the microphone. But it reiterated that the device had unauthorised modifications, voiding the warranty. Infiniti Retail Limited (Croma) failed to appear and was proceeded against ex-parte. The commission, after perusal of documents on record, held that Apple failed to specify exactly which term or condition of the warranty was breached by the complainant. 'Merely referring clauses of warranty terms and condition cannot be sufficient to attribute the particular defect as certain unauthorized modification or damage to software,' it noted. The commission concluded that documents and evidence brought on record are sufficient to ascertain the defect in goods coupled with deficiency in service provided by the opposite parties. It ruled that both the manufacturer and the seller are 'jointly and severally liable for the defective product'. The commission directed both the opposite parties to refund the iPhone cost of Rs 65,264, along with a 6 per cent interest per annum from the date of the complaint (August 6, 2021) until the date of actual payment. The two companies were also directed to pay Rs 15,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs 2,000 for legal expenses to customer's family. PTI AVI GK This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
Time of India
6 days ago
- Health
- Time of India
Botched hair job: Salon to refund charges, pay fine
1 2 3 Chandigarh: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has ordered a prominent salon chain to refund and compensate a Mohali-based woman after a routine hair colouring session turned into a medical emergency. The 36-year-old complainant, a resident of SAS Nagar, visited the salon in March 2023 for a hair colouring and Botox treatment, costing her nearly Rs 18,000. According to the complaint, the service was provided by a stylist presented as the salon's most skilled professional. Shortly after the procedure began, the woman reportedly began feeling nauseous and complained of dizziness, followed by heavy vomiting and abdominal pain. Despite her worsening condition, the salon staff allegedly refused to provide medical assistance or arrange transportation to a hospital. Her mother, who was present, had to rush her to CHD City Hospital in Chandigarh, where she remained admitted for three days. The medical diagnosis linked the incident to an allergic reaction to hair dye, something the woman claims she was not properly tested or warned about beforehand. The total medical expenses came to Rs 21,907. In its defence, the salon claimed that the woman had initially reported feeling unwell and had mentioned a known allergy to hair dye, even stating that she took cetirizine intermittently. The salon alleged that she chose to proceed despite being advised otherwise. However, two of the salon's representatives failed to appear during the proceedings and were declared ex parte, while a third did not file a defence and had their right to contest struck off. The commission found the salon negligent in its duty of care, particularly noting the absence of a first aid kit or emergency medical support at the premises. It also criticised the indifferent attitude of the salon staff when the woman was visibly suffering from a reaction. The commission held the salon deficient in providing services. The salon has now been directed to jointly and severally refund Rs 17,900 for the cost of the treatments, reimburse Rs 21,907 towards her medical expenses, pay Rs 7,500 for mental agony and harassment and pay Rs 7,000 as litigation costs. Failure to comply within 45 days will attract a penal interest of 9% per annum on the compensation and refund amounts.
New Indian Express
6 days ago
- Business
- New Indian Express
E-com platform delivers wrong lingerie, woman awarded Rs 5k in damages
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: A Thiruvananthapuram woman who sued an online seller for delivering her the wrong items was awarded Rs 5,000 compensation by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC). In her complaint, the woman said she made the purchase while on bed rest after a fall. On September 2, 2024, she placed the order on the e-commerce platform Shopify for a pack of three 5XL front button buckle sleep bras. The payment, Rs 799, was made through cash-on-delivery mode. The delivered pack contained only two bras. Also, they were front open bras, that too, of different sizes. She immediately tried to contact the seller through the website link for return and refund. However, she could not contact them.
Time of India
7 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Bank fined for losing customer's property papers
Ghaziabad: District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) has ordered Noida Commercial Cooperative Bank to pay Rs 25,000 in compensation for mental agony after it misplaced a customer's original property documents. An additional Rs 5,000 was imposed as litigation costs. The bank, which admitted to losing files during a 2011 office relocation, has also been directed to arrange a certified duplicate of the petitioner's property registration, stating that under no circumstances should the misplaced original deed be misused. Ghaziabad resident Ramesh Chandra Singh approached the commission seeking a directive to the bank to return his original property deed, mortgaged for a home loan. Singh had taken a loan of Rs 1.25 lakh in 2007 to build a house in Krishna Nagar, Meerut Road, and repaid it fully. However, when he requested the documents in 2017, the bank neither returned them nor provided a satisfactory response. You Can Also Check: Noida AQI | Weather in Noida | Bank Holidays in Noida | Public Holidays in Noida In a written reply, the bank challenged the jurisdiction of the DCDRC to hear the matter because it is a cooperative society registered under the UP Cooperative Societies Act 1965. "By virtue of being a member of the cooperative society, the petitioner was sanctioned a loan, and under section 111 of the Cooperative Society Act, no dispute can be entertained at the level of the court of DCDRC," it stated. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like No annual fees for life UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo The bank stated that under Section 70 of the Act, Singh could approach the arbitrator case registrar in Lucknow for dispute resolution. It also informed the commission that during its relocation from Ghaziabad to Sector 19, Noida, in 2011, some files, including Singh's documents, were misplaced. An FIR was filed regarding the lost papers.
Time of India
04-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Consumer court orders bank to pay Rs 30,000, waive loan for EMI deduction lapse
Jharsuguda: A consumer court in Jharsuguda has ordered a nationalised bank to waive the outstanding amount of a customer for service deficiency in handling EMI deductions for a term loan. In its order on Wednesday, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission also directed the bank to pay Rs 30,000 as compensation along with Rs 10,000 in litigation expenses to the complainant. The case stemmed from a Rs 5.8 lakh term loan availed by Entkhab Alam of Belpahar and his wife, Mushrat Parween, under a bank scheme in 2009. Despite maintaining sufficient balance in their savings account, the bank failed to deduct EMIs from Nov 2012 to July 2014, resulting in accumulated interest and penal charges. Alam had lodged the complaint before the commission against the bank's Brajarajnagar branch and its Sambalpur zonal office on Nov 18, 2024. The commission, headed by president Jigeesha Mishra and member Anju Agarwal rejected the bank's argument that no auto-debit consent was provided by the complainant. The ruling cited RBI guidelines that prohibit charging penal interest on late EMI payments, particularly when partial payments were made to protect the property. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 2025년부터 울산주민은 임플란트할때 '49만원' 혜택받는다. 울산심플치과 더 알아보기 Undo "The bank's failure to issue timely EMI instructions and subsequent charging of unnecessary penal interest clearly amounts to service deficiency," the commission stated in its order. The bank has been directed to issue a no-objection certificate within one month. Non-compliance will attract 12% annual interest on the awarded amount until realisation.
