consumer services cases

8/12/2019 Consumer Services Cases.

1/26


2/26

Railways- Union of India and Ors. V. Nathmal Hansaria and Anr.

(1997) 5 CPJ315 (CP) (NCDRC) Facts: Kabita Hansaria, a railway passenger died because

of her fall from the passage between the two

compartments because it did not have grills on sides tohold her back in case of jerk during he movement of train. Issues Whether a railway passenger traveling in a train on

payment of consideration is a consumer under the Act? Section 82 A of the railways Act Section 13 of the railways Claims tribunal Act, 1987

provide for compensation for Railway accidents and notfor an accidental death of this nature.


3/26

Judgment Assam State Commission gave the judgment in favour

of the plaintiff Kabita.

Appeal was made National commission held that the State commission

was right in pointing out that a railway passenger is aconsumer and the death of Kabita was caused by her

fall from the passage between the two compartmentsbecause it did not have grills on sides to hold her backin case of jerk during the movement of train.


4/26

AIRLINES Todays competitive scenario the airlines offer

facilities such as Frequent Flyer benefits, betterquality of food, friendly staff and crew, telephone

services etc. Ajay Kalia v. Air India Limited Decided on 24/7/08 Facts; Ajay Kalia, along with his family, traveled New

Delhi-Dubai-New Delhi on Air India.

On the day of their return(2/1/2007) from Dubai toNew Delhi, they suffered an ordeal. The departuretime of their flight was 1700 hours, they reached theair port and found that the flight was delayed.


5/26


6/26

Ajay Kalia claimed Rs. 4,80,000/-ascompensation for each passenger althoughhe orally submitted that the money was notthe issue in this petition.

Interim Order of the National Commission National Commissions direction to Air -India:

to produce the guidelines regarding the flightirregularities prescribed by them.


7/26

These regulations should be made known tothe public at large, to place regulations atprominent place at every airport in thecountry from where Air India operates.


8/26

Air India v. Prakash SinghI(2008) CPJ334. Facts: Prakash Singh and His wife had booked two tickets on

the Air India for Delhi-Hong Kong-USA-Seoul-Singapore-Delhi.

They had confirmed booking for 3/6/02 for the lastsector Singapore-Delhi.

An email was sent on 7/4/02 to prepone their journey

from 3/6/02 to 2/6/02. No communication receivedfrom Air India regarding whether the change waseffected or not.


9/26

They tried to contact the Air India office at Singaporeon 27, 28, 29/5/02. Every time there was a tapedvoice stating all operators are busy.

They made efforts to contact Mr. Sen Gupta, the

senior most officer of Air India at Singapore butcould not reach him. On 29/05/02 they left Bali Islands and on their return

on 1/6/02, they were told by Air India that since theirseats were not confirmed, they had beenautomatically cancelled by the system on 31/5/02.Therefore they had no seats for either 2/6/02 or3/6/02 to return to Delhi


10/26

Air India refused to accommodate them onthe flight on 2/6/02 and forced them toupgrade their tickets from V class to L classafter charging Singapore dollar 234. As therewas no other alternative, the complainantspaid this amount and finally, managed to

travel to Delhi on 2.6.02.


11/26

Air India contested that the seats get cancelledautomatically if they are not re-confirmed within 72 hoursprior to the date of the scheduled journey.

At the same time, Air India could not contradict thecontentions made by the complainants regarding receiptsof emails for preponement.

It also could not give any answer regarding not informingof the complainant about the cancellation of tickets or thepreponement of the tickets whatever, after the requestwas made by the complainants. In fact, Air Indiamaintained complete silence in this regard.


12/26

Clear from the evidence produced that the telephone linesof Air India remained continuously busy and recordedvoice was fed on the telephone. The Air India Acceptedtheir lapse.

In response to the issue regarding re-confirmation it washeld that in the present day of globalization and advancetechnology, air India can not expect passengers to rush toits office to pass on simple message of reconfirmation orcancellation of their tickets.

The commission directed Air India to refund the moneythat had been paid by the complainants along with aninterest at the rate of 10% p.a.


13/26

Vinod Sanghhi v. Hyderabad Siver Hawk, II(2007) CPJ 168

Vegetarians denied vegetarian food.


14/26

Education Case of Derecognized University Based on the advertisement issued by Raj

University, Hari Prasad, got himself admittedinto MBA course.

When he was about to appear for theexamination, he came to know that theinstitution was de-recognized.

The Karnataka State Commission held that whenthe Institution itself had been de-recognized, itought not to have admitted the students to thecourse.


15/26

The advertisement issued by the university amountsto misleading the public which is clearly unfair tradepractice. Even if the students are permitted to appearfor the examination and the Raj University awardsdegrees, still it would be considered invalid becausethey do not have any recognition.

The Commission directed Raj University to refund thefee collected by it along with a compensation of Rs.25000/- and to remit Rs. 25000/- to the ConsumerWelfare Fund as Warning Signal.


16/26

Electricity Services

Jharkhand State electricity Board v. AnwarAli(IV, (2007) CPJ 6 (SC))

Whether the Consumer Fora have jurisdictionto deal with the grievances of the consumer ofelectricity, in case of deficiency in service byelectricity supplier, after enactment ofElectricity Act, 2003?


17/26

Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Charan Singh,I (1999) CPJ 162

Facts- shri Charan Singh carried cultivation and

cattle farm . In his field live electric line waspassing over and those wires have become looseand that they were hardly seven to eight feet highfrom the ground. Whenever there was a storm ,

wire could fall on the ground. Many writtencomplaints were lodged. Care was not taken byelectricity board.


18/26

No rectification by the electric company. One day a she buffalo died due to

electrocution. It


19/26

efectivegoods

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v JitendraKumar Gupta, II(2005) CPJ 499

Facts: Jitendra kumar purchased 1Kg. sealed packet of surf

manufactured by Hindustan LeverLtd. From Ashok Kumar AnilKumar- the retailer

He found less weight in the packet

It was brought to the notice of theretailer


20/26

Thereafter, he sent a Regd. Post to HindustanLever Company.

Initially he was assured-3 packets of 500grams would be given to him.

Not given to him He finally got a notice from them that

decrease in weight was possibly due toatmospheric and weather condition.


21/26

He wrote to the company but it was unheard. Complaint was filed in the Distt. consumer

forum. Dist forum directed Hindustan Lever to refund

the price for 400 gms of surf which was shortalong with the compensation of Rs. 5000/-

and the cost of Rs. 2,000/- and further levied apenalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be deposited inthe Govt. treasury .


22/26

The State Commission held that the consumerhad a right to claim compensation for hisgrievances under CPA, 1986 and the reliefgiven to the consumer is confirmed, but theorder of deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Govt.Treasury was set aside.


23/26

K. Ramesh, S/o. Hanumantha Rao v.Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.,C.C. 113 of 2007

Facts: Ramesh Purchased 8 bottles of Mazzafrom Siva Sai fancy and Cool drinks.

He served it to his friends, three bottles wereconsumed.

In one of the bottle , Gutkha packet wasfound.s


24/26

Keeping this bottle safely he filed case in thedistrict consumer forum.

Distributor was not held liable Retailer and the manufacturer were held liable. Ramesh has purchased 8 bottles for Rs. 9 each,

out of it three were consumed. The Manufacturer

was directed to refund the price of remainingbottles, with a compensation of Rs. 5000/- andRs. 1000/- as costs to be paid within 30 days.


25/26


26/26

consumer services cases

Documents