Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Remanding the consumer dispute back to the District Consumer Commission, the Court relied on MP State Agro Industries Development Corp. Ltd v. Jahan Khan, wherein it was observed that a Court may not entertain a writ petition due to availability of an alternative remedy, but the said rule cannot be said to be of universal application.
“Such a deceptive act from the part of an erring manufacturer or trader is tantamount to jeopardizing the very dignity of the consumer and his right to live a life free from exploitation or deception or any kind of unfair trade practice.”
VLCC failed to deliver on their promise by not conducting the courses as per the agreed terms. Furthermore, their suggestion to adjust the course fees against the enrolment of a relative was found to be unfair and contrary to consumer protection principles by DCDRC.
The District Consumer Commission observed that issuance of poorly printed bills to consumers may constitute ‘deficiency of service’ and an ‘unfair trade practice’ as per directives issued by Kerala State Department of Consumer Affairs.
The Commission stated that the Indigo’s deficiency in services caused the married couple irrevocable hardship and spoiled their holiday mood.
Amazon defended its case saying that it was merely an online platform and not the seller of such defective telescope, contending that there was no deficiency in service.