Latest news with #ErnakulamDistrictConsumerDisputesRedressalCommission
The Hindu
5 days ago
- Business
- The Hindu
Consumer rights panel slaps fine on company for failure to service water purifier
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has slapped a company engaged in manufacturing and marketing household electrical appliances with a fine of ₹30,000 for the alleged failure to repair a water purifier despite an annual maintenance contract (AMC) being in place. The Commission comprising D.B. Binu, president, and members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. issued the ex parte order on a petition filed by one Ajish. K. John of Kothamangalam against the manager of Eureka Forbes Ltd. The complainant said he had an AMC with the opposite party since 2018, which he regularly renewed for uninterrupted service. Despite this, the complainant faced repeated service issues. In April 2024, the purifier began leaking, and although a service request was raised, it was later cancelled unilaterally by the opposite party, he said. Following this, the complainant approached the Commission. However, the opposite party failed to submit any argument notes or participate in the proceedings. The Commission observed that the service lapses constituted a deficiency in service as defined under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Further, unilateral cancellation of a service request without informing the complainant amounts to an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47), as it misleads or fails to fulfil a promised contractual obligation, the Commission observed. The complainant, being deprived of clean drinking water due to the non-functioning of the purifier, endured mental agony, hardship, and inconvenience, especially given that the purifier was essential due to contaminated well water. 'The Complainant, despite diligently maintaining an Annual Maintenance Contract and repeatedly reaching out for help, was met with silence, delays, and even the unjust cancellation of service. This experience not only disrupted his daily life but also caused significant mental distress. When a consumer is compelled to approach a legal forum for the enforcement of basic service obligations, it reflects a glaring failure in corporate responsibility and empathy, values that should be at the heart of every consumer-facing organisation,' the Commission remarked. Consequently, the opposite party was directed to pay ₹25,000 as fine and another ₹5,000 towards the cost of legal proceedings.
The Hindu
6 days ago
- Business
- The Hindu
Ernakulam consumer panel orders retailer to pay compensation for delivering faulty phone
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered an online retailer to pay a total compensation of ₹70,000 to a resident of Kacheripady, Ernakulam, for delivering a defective and old mobile phone and cheating him by terming it as a brand new device. 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.
Hindustan Times
23-05-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Restaurant has no legal obligation to serve gravy with parotta and beef fry, says Kerala Consumer Court
In an unusual consumer dispute, a complaint against a Kerala restaurant for failing to serve complimentary gravy with a beef fry and porotta order has been dismissed by the Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), according to a report by Bar and Bench. The Commission held that there was no legal or contractual obligation requiring the restaurant to provide free gravy, and therefore, no deficiency in service had occurred. (Also read: New York woman says she found dead rat in salad after eating 'two-thirds' of meal; restaurant denies claim) Presiding over the case, District Forum President DB Binu and members Ramachandran V and Sreevidhia TN unanimously ruled that the restaurant's decision did not breach any provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. 'In the instant case, there was no contractual obligation—express or implied—on the part of the Opposite Party to provide gravy. Therefore, the non-providing of gravy at the time of supplying porotta and beef cannot be considered as a deficiency in service from the part of opposite party No.1 and 2, and hence no enforceable consumer relationship arises in this respect,' the Commission observed. The complainant, journalist Shibu S Vayalakath, had visited The Persian Table, a restaurant located in Kolenchery, in November last year. After ordering beef fry and porotta, he requested gravy to accompany the meal, a request the restaurant denied, citing its internal policy of not providing complimentary gravy. Displeased by the refusal, Shibu initially approached the Kunnathunadu Taluk Supply Officer. A joint investigation by supply and food safety officers confirmed that the restaurant did not include gravy in its standard offerings. Subsequently, Shibu filed a consumer complaint demanding ₹1 lakh for emotional distress and mental agony, ₹10,000 in legal expenses, and punitive action against the establishment. He argued that the denial of gravy amounted to a restrictive trade practice and a deficiency in service. However, the forum disagreed, pointing out that the case did not concern the quality, quantity, or safety of food—criteria essential to establish a deficiency under the law. (Also read: 'No real estate or political talks': Bengaluru restaurant board catches internet's eye) As per the report by Bar and Bench, the Commission, relying on Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, held that since there was no mention of gravy in the menu or bill, the restaurant had neither misrepresented nor deceived the customer in any way. 'In the instant case, there is no evidence of any misrepresentation, false promise, or deceptive trade practice committed by the Opposite Party. Neither the menu nor the bill suggests that gravy was included with, or promised alongside, the ordered dishes. A restaurant's internal policy regarding accompaniments cannot, in the absence of a legal or contractual obligation, be construed as a deficiency in service,' it ruled. With that, the forum dismissed the complaint, affirming that the absence of free gravy did not violate any consumer rights.
The Hindu
22-05-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Free serving of gravy with parotta is no longer guaranteed
If you are someone who is used to free servings of gravy with the crisply served 'parotta' and beef fry, do not be surprised if the gravy goes missing next time when you order parotta. The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has decreed that not providing gravy along with parotta and beef cannot be considered as a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. The order was issued on a petition filed by Shibu S. Vayalakath of Choondi against Persian Table Restaurant at Kolencherry. According to the complainant, the restaurant did not serve gravy when he ordered parotta and beef fry while dining out with a friend last year. The restaurant manager and the owner reportedly told him that it was against their policy to serve gravy. The complainant filed a complaint with the Kunnathunadu taluk supply officer who, based on an inspection, confirmed that the establishment did not provide gravy with dry food items. The complainant then approached the Commission with a petition seeking compensation of ₹1 lakh for mental agony, ₹10,000 towards legal costs, and legal action against the restaurant under the Consumer Protection Act. The Commission observed that the complainant had not raised any grievance regarding the quality, quantity, or safety of the food items that were ordered, consumed, and paid for, but only about the non-availability of gravy, which was neither promised nor charged for. 'Under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, 'deficiency' means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance of services which is required to be maintained under law or contract. In the instant case, there was no contractual obligation, express or implied, on the part of the opposite party to provide gravy,' the Commission said. Therefore, not providing gravy with parotta and beef cannot be considered a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and hence no enforceable consumer relationship arises in this respect. 'It is a settled position of law that unless there is a direct nexus between the service availed and the consideration paid by the complainant, a complaint would not be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act as the existence of a transactional relationship is a pre-requisite to invoke the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission,' the order said.
