CCPA Advisory: No Separate LPG and Fuel Charges on Restaurant Bills
CCPA has issued an advisory strengthening consumer protection by prohibiting restaurants from levying separate LPG and fuel charges.
Unfair Trade Practice
CCPA Issues Notices to Six E-Commerce Platforms for Listing Restricted Drone & GPS Jammers in Violation of Consumer Protection Laws
CCPA has notified six e-commerce platforms for unlawfully listing restricted wireless jamming devices without approvals.
Brand Ambassador/Endorser’s liability under Consumer Protection Act: Kerala High Court absolves Actor Mohanlal from liability in Manappuram Finance consumer case
A brand ambassador/endorser cannot be proceeded against in consumer dispute proceedings for unfair trade practice or deficiency of service unless a direct link is established between the endorser and the transaction.
Mandatory Service Charge Declared Illegal: CCPA Penalizes Restaurants Across India
CCPA has enforced consumer protection law against 27 restaurants; automatic service charge deemed illegal, penalties imposed to curb unfair trade practices.
CCPA imposes Rs 10 Lakhs penalty on Rapido for its ‘Guaranteed Auto’ & ‘Auto in 5 min or get ₹ 50’ Advertisements
“Rapido had engaged in a practice calculated to mislead consumers by both commission and omission overstating its actual service capability while concealing qualifying conditions for the purpose of promoting its business”.
How discolouration of Saree on first use led to a ₹36,500 Consumer Court Award!
The complainant purchased 14 sarees from IHA Designs for his wife and relatives for his sister-in-law’s engagement function upon being influenced by the advertisements promising curated selections and high-quality craftsmanship.
‘Consumer disputes are non-arbitrable’; District Commission holds NCDRC’s Two verdicts as per incuriam
“On one side is judicial propriety and on the other, severe contempt. Yet this Commission will take this risk and make attempt to set legal principles clearly for the purposes of upholding judicial federalism”.
When DCDRC, Mumbai directed Amazon to pay Rs 40,000 for non-delivery of Rs. 100 Motu Patlu Kids Rakhi
The DCDRC stated that it is the duty of Amazon that it should verify the whereabouts as well as the status of the seller before accepting the order of a respective product.
Tipping the Balance: An Analysis of Delhi High Court’s Ban on Mandatory Service Charges in Restaurants
by Arush Khanna* and Vaibhav Mehra**
One-sided Developer-Buyer Agreement; SC refuses to interfere in NCDRC’s order to refund amount in excess of 10% of BSP
The Court reiterated that one-sided Agreements, as in the present case, would be covered by the definition of term “unfair trade practice”.
Non-deployment of air bags, hump heating, defective car: A complete breakdown of SC verdict directing Mercedes to pay Rs. 36 lakhs to buyer
“People do not purchase the high-end luxurious cars to suffer discomfort more particularly when they buy the vehicle keeping utmost faith in the supplier who would make the representations in the brochures or the advertisements projecting and promoting such cars as the finest and safest automobile in the world.”
Role of Dark Patterns in Consumer Decision-Making and Data Disclosure
by Tanu Banerjee†, Sankalp Jain†† and Vaibhav Laddha†††
Inside Thrissur District Consumer Commission order on Britannia selling biscuits below packaged weight
“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.”
Supreme Court sets aside NCDRC order against YRF for not including ‘Jabra Fan’ song in movie; says promotional trailers not binding offers
“Promotional trailers are unilateral and are only meant to encourage a viewer to purchase the ticket to the movie, which is an independent transaction and contract from the promotional trailer. A promotional trailer by itself is not an offer and neither intends to nor can create a contractual relationship.”
Not providing free drinking water facility thereby compelling patrons to buy packaged mineral water; DCDRC finds Foresta Café liable for unfair trade practices
The Commission stated that restaurants and cafes have a moral and legal obligation to provide free drinking water to their patrons, and failure to do so constitutes deficiency in services.
Manufacturers failing to provide spare parts required for product’s proper functioning in its anticipated lifespan, constitutes unfair trade practice: DCDRC
Holding Samsung India liable for deficiency in service, DCDRC stated that often companies fail to provide spare parts required for a product’s proper functioning, thereby eventually compelling consumers to discard still-functional products.
Why DCDRC found Cloud Nine Hospital to be guilty of severe deficiency in service while conducting a Code Pink Mock Drill for infant abduction?
DCDRC was of the view that the manner of conducting the mock drill by the hospital was not only a severe deficiency in service but also as an extreme type of unfair trade practice.
CCPA notifies Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023 to prevent unfair trade practice
On 30-11-2023, the Central Consumer Protection Authority notified the Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023. The provisions came into
Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction to Calvin Klein for marks ‘CK’, ‘Calvin Klein’, ‘ck one’ used for perfumes
“Testers are being sold by the defendants, Xeryus Retail (P) Ltd. masquerading them as perfumes of the plaintiff, Coty Germany GMBH for sale, thereby, luring customers into paying money for such testers which are otherwise, not to be commercially dispensed.”
Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction to Lifelong Online Retail (P) Ltd for its mark ‘Lifelong’ in a trade mark infringement suit
The Delhi High Court restrained the defendant from dealing in any goods, under the impugned trade mark ‘Lifelong’ or any other mark as may be identical to or deceptively similar with the plaintiff’s (Lifelong Online Retail (P) Ltd.) registered trade mark ‘Lifelong’, to cause infringement of the plaintiff’s trade marks.