{"id":310168,"date":"2023-12-26T15:30:48","date_gmt":"2023-12-26T10:00:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=310168"},"modified":"2023-12-27T18:27:57","modified_gmt":"2023-12-27T12:57:57","slug":"samsung-india-manufacturer-spare-parts-defects-unfair-trade-practice-dcdrc-lega-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/26\/samsung-india-manufacturer-spare-parts-defects-unfair-trade-practice-dcdrc-lega-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Manufacturers failing to provide spare parts required for product\u2019s proper functioning in its anticipated lifespan, constitutes unfair trade practice: DCDRC"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Ernakulam:<\/span> While considering the instant complaint filed under Section 35<\/a> of Consumer Protection Act, 2019<\/a> (“CPA”), wherein the complainant expressed dissatisfaction with service provided by the authorised service centre for his refrigerator; The Full Bench of D.B. Binu, (President)*<\/span> and V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N (Members) held that Samsung India, upon failure to provide the necessary spare parts for repairment of the defects, exhibits a deficiency in service and engaging in restrictive trade practice under the, Section 2(41) CPA.<\/p>\n

The Commission stated that manufacturers frequently employ enticing advertising strategies to persuade consumers to purchase their products. However, a recurring problem arises when these companies fail in their duty to provide necessary spare and consumable parts required for the product’s proper functioning throughout its anticipated lifespan. This widespread issue affects consumers across various product categories. When manufacturers decline to furnish these vital components, it effectively compels consumers to discard still-functional products. Such Conduct constitutes an unfair trade practice, as it coerces consumers into procuring replacements, thereby artificially inflating the manufacturer’s sales and profits.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/p>\n

In July, 2016, the complainant was persuaded by OP2 to purchase a double-door refrigerator for Rs.72,000. In April, 2021, the refrigerator started experiencing issues in cooling. After several attempts in contacting Samsung customer care services, an engineer was sent to inspect the fridge, and a potential gas leak was identified. Despite attempts at repair, the fridge’s performance did not improve. Eventually. the service centre took the refrigerator for further inspection, claiming that it could not be repaired on-site. The fridge was returned after a brief repair. However, the fridge’s condition worsened again. The complainant raised his grievance again, and this time a different engineer came and confirmed a manufacturing defect involving a gas leak within the tubes, and further offered a new fridge for a comparatively lower rate.<\/p>\n

The complainant sought refund of Rs. 72,000 or a replacement for a new one with Rs. 20,000 as compensation for the service delay and Rs. 20,000 as compensation for mental agony and undue hardship.<\/p>\n

Per contra, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. contended the complaint to be unsustainable in law and should be dismissed under Section 26 of the CPA. It was submitted that this is not a consumer dispute. The alleged defects cannot necessarily be manufacturing defects and could be due to mishandling or other rectifiable reasons The CPA requires expert opinion when defects are not visible.. They further submitted that the complainant was duly informed that the damages which occurred to the fridge were outside the warranty period. It was further argued that the, complainant never approached them for after-sales. OP1 relied on the Supreme Court ruling in , C.N. Anantharam v. Fiat India Ltd.<\/span>, (2011) 1 SCC 460<\/a> which held that the manufacturers are not compelled to replace a product when there is no major manufacturing defect.<\/span>. Therefore, Samsung India claimed that no deficiency in service was exhibited from their side and that the complainant is not entitled to any relief.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, OP2 contended that the complaint lacks legitimate cause of action and is time barred. It was submitted that the complainant alleging these defects after using the fridge for 5 years without any issues, is an attempt to obtain a new product unjustly. They maintain that after-sales services are responsibility of the manufacturer and claimed to not have offered any warranty or service. OP2 relied on Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. N. Siva Kumar<\/span>, (2000) 10 SCC 654<\/a>, to support their stance that a dealer is not liable for manufacturing defects. It was also asserted by OP2 that, there was no evidence for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from their side, emphasizing that burden of proving rests with complainant.<\/p>\n

Commission’s Assessment:<\/p>\n

The Commission noted that the complainant is a consumer, as per Section (2)7 of CPA on basis of the payment receipts between the parties.<\/p>\n

The Commission further noted that the argument put forth by OP 2 that the obligations pertaining to warranty and after-sales services lie with the manufacturer, hold merit.<\/p>\n

The report of the independent expert commissioner confirmed that the defects did not result from normal customer usage.<\/p>\n

The Commission accepted the complainant’s argument that opposite parties bear the responsibility of ensuring the availability of components in the market for a minimum period from the introduction of their products. The Commission observed that the complainant has claimed that the manufacturer used specific tactics to pressure the consumer into purchasing an additional product from them, which is essentially a “restricted trade practice”. The Commission pointed out that Section 2(41) of CPA, defines a “restricted trade practice” as any trade behaviour that is seen as restrictive, unfair, or deceptive.<\/p>\n

The Commission noted that in the absence of a dedicated ‘Right to Repair law in India, instances exist where the judiciary has intervened to address related concerns. The Commission opined that Samsung India failed to provide the necessary spare parts for the product to address the defects, thereby exhibiting deficiency in services and engaging in unfair trade practice.<\/p>\n

The Commission further opined that intentional withholding of essential and consumable spare parts by manufacturers leave consumers with limited options compelling them to abandon functional products and acquire replacements. This imposes financial burden and contributes to increase in electronic waste.<\/p>\n

The Commission also expressed its appreciation for the complainant, who is a retired senior Indian Naval Officer. The Bench said that, “He has gone to great lengths to approach this Commission seeking justice for his legitimate rights against a multinational company. This is a commendable act, as he is creating a model for other suffering consumers against deficiency in service and unfair trade practices committed by traders<\/span>”.<\/p>\n

Thus the Commission held Samsung liable to compensate the complainant and directed them to refund Rs.36,000 and pay Rs.40,000 and Rs. 20,000 as compensation for mental distress, physical inconvenience and cost of proceedings respectively.<\/p>\n

[Keerthi M. Kuriens v. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., CC No. 328\/2021, dated on: 30-10-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Order by D. B. Binu, President<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the First Opposite Party: Advocate K.S. Arundas<\/p>\n

For the Second Opposite Party: Advocate T.J. Lakshmanan<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":305843,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[50169,37027,31462,63876,63877,34981],"class_list":["post-310168","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-consumer-court","tag-consumer-protection-act-2019","tag-mental-agony","tag-restricted-trade-practice-dcdrc","tag-samsung-india","tag-unfair-trade-practice"],"yoast_head":"\nManufacturers not providing spare parts for product\u2019s functioning in its anticipated lifespan, is unfair trade practice: DCDRC<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"DCDRC stated that companies\u2019 failure to provide spare parts eventually compels consumers to discard still-functional products.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/26\/samsung-india-manufacturer-spare-parts-defects-unfair-trade-practice-dcdrc-lega-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manufacturers failing to provide spare parts required for product\u2019s proper functioning in its anticipated lifespan, constitutes unfair trade practice: DCDRC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"DCDRC stated that companies\u2019 failure to provide spare parts eventually compels consumers to discard still-functional products.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/26\/samsung-india-manufacturer-spare-parts-defects-unfair-trade-practice-dcdrc-lega-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-12-26T10:00:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-12-27T12:57:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/District-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Manufacturers failing to provide spare parts required for product\u2019s proper functioning in its anticipated lifespan, constitutes unfair trade practice: DCDRC\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/26\/samsung-india-manufacturer-spare-parts-defects-unfair-trade-practice-dcdrc-lega-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/26\/samsung-india-manufacturer-spare-parts-defects-unfair-trade-practice-dcdrc-lega-news\/\",\"name\":\"Manufacturers not providing spare parts for product\u2019s functioning in its anticipated lifespan, is unfair trade practice: DCDRC\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/26\/samsung-india-manufacturer-spare-parts-defects-unfair-trade-practice-dcdrc-lega-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/26\/samsung-india-manufacturer-spare-parts-defects-unfair-trade-practice-dcdrc-lega-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/District-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-12-26T10:00:48+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-12-27T12:57:57+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"DCDRC stated that companies\u2019 failure to provide spare parts eventually compels consumers to discard still-functional products.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/26\/samsung-india-manufacturer-spare-parts-defects-unfair-trade-practice-dcdrc-lega-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/26\/samsung-india-manufacturer-spare-parts-defects-unfair-trade-practice-dcdrc-lega-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/26\/samsung-india-manufacturer-spare-parts-defects-unfair-trade-practice-dcdrc-lega-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/District-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/District-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/26\/samsung-india-manufacturer-spare-parts-defects-unfair-trade-practice-dcdrc-lega-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manufacturers failing to provide spare parts required for product\u2019s proper functioning in its anticipated lifespan, constitutes unfair trade practice: DCDRC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Manufacturers not providing spare parts for product\u2019s functioning in its anticipated lifespan, is unfair trade practice: DCDRC","description":"DCDRC stated that companies\u2019 failure to provide spare parts eventually compels consumers to discard still-functional products.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/26\/samsung-india-manufacturer-spare-parts-defects-unfair-trade-practice-dcdrc-lega-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manufacturers failing to provide spare parts required for product\u2019s proper functioning in its anticipated lifespan, constitutes unfair trade practice: DCDRC","og_description":"DCDRC stated that companies\u2019 failure to provide spare parts eventually compels consumers to discard still-functional products.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/26\/samsung-india-manufacturer-spare-parts-defects-unfair-trade-practice-dcdrc-lega-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-12-26T10:00:48+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-12-27T12:57:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/District-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Manufacturers failing to provide spare parts required for product\u2019s proper functioning in its anticipated lifespan, constitutes unfair trade practice: DCDRC","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/26\/samsung-india-manufacturer-spare-parts-defects-unfair-trade-practice-dcdrc-lega-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/26\/samsung-india-manufacturer-spare-parts-defects-unfair-trade-practice-dcdrc-lega-news\/","name":"Manufacturers not providing spare parts for product\u2019s functioning in its anticipated lifespan, is unfair trade practice: DCDRC","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/26\/samsung-india-manufacturer-spare-parts-defects-unfair-trade-practice-dcdrc-lega-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/26\/samsung-india-manufacturer-spare-parts-defects-unfair-trade-practice-dcdrc-lega-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/District-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp","datePublished":"2023-12-26T10:00:48+00:00","dateModified":"2023-12-27T12:57:57+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"DCDRC stated that companies\u2019 failure to provide spare parts eventually compels consumers to discard still-functional products.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/26\/samsung-india-manufacturer-spare-parts-defects-unfair-trade-practice-dcdrc-lega-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/26\/samsung-india-manufacturer-spare-parts-defects-unfair-trade-practice-dcdrc-lega-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/26\/samsung-india-manufacturer-spare-parts-defects-unfair-trade-practice-dcdrc-lega-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/District-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/District-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/26\/samsung-india-manufacturer-spare-parts-defects-unfair-trade-practice-dcdrc-lega-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manufacturers failing to provide spare parts required for product\u2019s proper functioning in its anticipated lifespan, constitutes unfair trade practice: DCDRC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/District-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":353245,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/12\/dcdrc-awards-compensation-for-saree-discolouration-on-first-use-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":310168,"position":0},"title":"How discolouration of Saree on first use led to a \u20b936,500 Consumer Court Award!","author":"Sucheta","date":"July 12, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"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.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"compensation for saree discoloration","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/compensation-for-saree-discoloration.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/compensation-for-saree-discoloration.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/compensation-for-saree-discoloration.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/compensation-for-saree-discoloration.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":318079,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/22\/charging-extra-cab-fare-actual-contracted-fare-uber-india-unfair-trade-practice-dcdrc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":310168,"position":1},"title":"DCDRC chastises Uber India; Notes that charging excess cab fare rather than the actual contracted fare during advance booking, is unfair trade practice","author":"Sucheta","date":"March 22, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"DCDRC also held that in order to keep a check on unruly service providers such as Uber, who commit breach of commitments at the nick of time, they are required to be dealt with heavy hands and as such they must be made to deposit at least Rs.10,000 as compensation\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"DCDRC finds Matrimony.Com Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failing to deliver video album of a marriage reception held in 2017","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/District-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/District-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/District-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/District-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":349040,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/29\/dcdrc-directs-amazon-pay-rs40000-compensation-non-delivery-motu-patlu-kids-rakhi-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":310168,"position":2},"title":"When DCDRC, Mumbai directed Amazon to pay Rs 40,000 for non-delivery of Rs. 100 Motu Patlu Kids Rakhi","author":"Sucheta","date":"May 29, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"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.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Amazon non-delivery of Rakhi","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Amazon-non-delivery-of-Rakhi.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Amazon-non-delivery-of-Rakhi.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Amazon-non-delivery-of-Rakhi.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Amazon-non-delivery-of-Rakhi.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":351145,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/21\/consumer-cases-arbitrability-ncdrc-cases-held-per-incuriam-dcdrc-consumer-courts-legal-news-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":310168,"position":3},"title":"‘Consumer disputes are non-arbitrable’; District Commission holds NCDRC’s Two verdicts as per incuriam","author":"Sucheta","date":"June 21, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cOn 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\u201d.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"DCDRC finds Matrimony.Com Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failing to deliver video album of a marriage reception held in 2017","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/District-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/District-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/District-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/District-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":308701,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/12\/08\/vlcc-unethical-unfair-trade-practices-coaching-institutes-fee-refund-dcdrc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":310168,"position":4},"title":"“Unscrupulous coaching institutes should not have the right to retain fees of students who leave course midway due to dissatisfaction with the services”: DCDRC","author":"Sucheta","date":"December 8, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"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.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/District-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/District-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/District-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/District-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":311094,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/10\/foresta-caf-unfair-trade-practice-sale-packaged-mineral-water-forcing-dcdrc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":310168,"position":5},"title":"Not providing free drinking water facility thereby compelling patrons to buy packaged mineral water; DCDRC finds Foresta Café liable for unfair trade practices","author":"Sucheta","date":"January 10, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"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.","rel":"","context":"In "Tribunals\/Commissions\/Regulatory Bodies"","block_context":{"text":"Tribunals\/Commissions\/Regulatory Bodies","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/District-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/District-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/District-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/District-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/310168","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=310168"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/310168\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/305843"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=310168"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=310168"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=310168"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}