How can buyers enforce their rights and seek remedial measures

Good as new?

Buying a new car is always a special event for anyone. Imagine the disappointment if you were to discover that the new car you paid for is old, damaged and repainted!
Vinay Sreenivas, an IT consultant from Bangalore, was thrilled when he booked a Fiat Palio with Concorde Motors. After paying Rs. 5,47,810, he was handed over a red Palio. However, he noticed dents on the body. Upon getting an opinion from a car painter, he found that the vehicle was damaged and had been repainted. Taking it back to the dealer, he demanded the car be tested. The test found that it had indeed been repainted. The management agreed to resolve the issue.

Vinay exchanged a number of emails with Concorde Motors, which told him that it could either paint the car again or replace the
damaged parts with a new one. Vinay demanded that he be given a new car, since he had paid for it. The dealer did not reply.
Vinay took the case to the consumer court, which, after hearing both sides, decided in Vinay’s favour and directed the dealer to either replace the car with a new one within 60 days or to pay back the full amount.

Banks using brawn

One often hears stories of banks employing goons and strongmen to reclaim money from defaulters.  One such case took place when the loan recovery agent of HDFC Bank sent musclemen to forcibly repossess Balwinder Singh’s hypothecated vehicle. This caused physical harassment and mental trauma to him, who took the case to the district forum. The forum
decided in Balwinder’s favour, ordering a compensation of  Rs. 4 lakh to be paid by the bank for its brutish methods and
the harassment caused by it.

Upon appeal, the Punjab state commission, confirmed the order. The bank went to the National Commission which took cognizance of the facts that the vehicle had not been repossessed with the complainant’s consent, and that Balwinder was never given notice
of his car being sold.

It condemned the practise of employing goons and forcibly repossessing property, and ordered exemplary damages of Rs. 25,000.

Lacking in substance

What should you do if a coaching agency or institute is not up to the mark? Can you leave before the duration of the course and get your money refunded?

Dalbir Singh of New Delhi joined the Sehgal School of Competition, but was not satisfied with the classes. He left after one year, although he had paid the fee for a two-year course. Seeking to get a refund of one year’s fees, he approached the district forum. The coaching institute contended that its contractwith Dalbir stated the payment could not be refunded or transferred under any circumstances.

The forum held that this condition was an unfair trade practise and biased against consumers. Therefore, it directed the institute to refund the remainder of the fees.

Who is a consumer?

When a parent takes his or her child to a doctor, who is the consumer? Is the parent entitled to consumer redressal in case of any deficiency in the treatment? Or will the child be entitled, as he is the one being treated?

According to the Supreme Court, both the parent and the child are consumers, and action can be taken by either or both against the negligent healthcare provider. In the case of Spring Meadows Hospital & Another vs Harjol Ahluwalia through KS Ahluwalia & Another, a faulty injection by the hospital led to the child  suffering cardiac arrest and paralysis. The court rejected the contention of the hospital that the child’s parents were not covered within the definition of consumers under the Consumer Protection Act and could not be awarded compensation separately. The court held that the parents were consumers, as they had hired a service, and that the child, being  a beneficiary of the service, was also a consumer. Thus, the court ordered compensation of  Rs. 12 .51 lakh to the child and of  Rs. 5 lakh to the parents for acute  mental agony.

Pure veg problem

BC Mahapati was a passenger on a Spice Jet flight from Bangalore to Delhi in 2009. When the air hostess arrived with the food cart, he asked for a vegetarian  sandwich. Instead, he was given a non-vegetarian one. This horrified Mahapati, a strict vegetarian.
The consumer court held that serving non-vegetarian food to a customer who asked for vegetarian food was a deficiency in service.

While the court dismissed the complainant’s claim for Rs. 5 lakh in damages as being inspired by greed,  it held that the airline should pay him Rs. 10,000 for the deficient service and Rs. 5,000 towards cost of litigation.