Consumer forum penalises Flipkart after customer gets empty package for camera

Consumer forum penalizes Flipkart after the customer gets the empty package for the camera As per the complaint filed by the Pune resident, the parcel she received on February 5, 2018, contained only an empty free deal bag. The Pune District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has asked e-commerce platform Flipkart to pay Rs 44,000 as compensation to a customer for a camera worth Rs 28,890. Gaurangi Deshmukh, a resident of Pune, placed an online order for a Nikon DSLR camera on Flipkart. She placed the order on February 4, 2018 and paid Rs 28,890 for the same via net banking. However, as per the complaint she registered with the consumer rights body, the parcel she received on February 5 contained only an empty free deal bag. The delivery boy gave the consignment to her building’s security guard despite her mentioning that the parcel should be handed only to her residential address and to no third person. Also, her father was at home when the consignment was accepted by the guard of the building, Moreover, when she came back and opened it, not only was the camera missing but the parcel was also found to be poorly packaged with cello-tapes holding the box together, which was frayed and torn from the sides. Deshmukh then filed a complaint against Flipkart with the consumer rights body under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which deals with deficiency in the service provided. A notice was then issued to Flipkart, asking its representatives to appear in court, which the e-commerce giant failed to comply with. An ex-parte order was then issued against the online retail platform on August 14. An advocate finally appeared in court on behalf of Flipkart on October 10. After hearing the arguments of both parties and scrutinising the evidence, the forum directed Flipkart to refund the consumer Rs 28,990 with 9 percent interest and a compensation of Rs 15,000 towards mental and physical agony, and the cost of the complaint. The consumer complaints body observed: “Nowadays,…

0 Comments

Court directs Pepsi to compensate for condom in bottle

Court directs Pepsi to compensate for a condom in bottle A consumer court in New Delhi has asked soft drink giant Pepsi to pay Rs 23,000 as compensation to a man who suffered health problems after consuming a bottle of adulterated beverage produced by the company. Noting that "legal remedies are going beyond the reach of the common man", a consumer court in New Delhi has asked soft drink giant Pepsi to pay Rs 23,000 as compensation to a man who suffered health problems after consuming a bottle of adulterated beverage produced by the company. Hearing a plea by Pepsi earlier this month, the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission headed by Justice JD Kapoor said: "Legal remedies are going beyond the reach of even middle class, what to talk of the common man. Therefore, service providers and traders should be ready to shell out some amount for the agony and torture suffered by the consumer in seeking redressal of grievance." In 2003, Sudesh Sharma, a resident of Ujhani village in the national capital, had purchased two bottles of Pepsi from a retail shop near Kashmiri Gate. Sharma started suffering from severe dyspepsia and headache followed by insomnia after drinking from one of the bottles. His condition worsened over a period of time and he had to seek medical help. On inspecting the bottle from which he had drunk, Sharma found dirt and other contaminants inside it. He was also shocked to find a condom inside the other Pepsi bottle, which was still sealed. Sharma approached the District Consumer Forum, which ordered Pepsi to pay him Rs 23,000 along with punitive damages of Rs 100,000 in 2006. Staunchly denying any negligence on its part, Pepsi challenged the District Consumer Forum order in the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Maintaining that the bottles may have contained spurious products illegally marketed under its brand name, Pepsi argued that Sharma had not submitted any proof of purchase of the bottles. However, the commission observed that it was not a…

0 Comments

End of content

No more pages to load