Nokia has been directed by a District Consumer Forum to compensate Rs 67,000 to a customers for harrassing him by selling a defective” cell phone and then failing to repair it or refund its price. The South Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held Nokia guilty of indulging in unfair trade practices for selling a defective phone and failing to repair it or refund its price since September 2007 when it was first taken for repairs by Delhi resident and complainant Rohan Arora.
“When the complainant (Rohan Arora) left the defective piece of good to its manufacturer, it was incumbent upon it either to remove its defect to satisfaction of the complainant or to refund its (mobile’s) amount with interest. But opposite party 1 did not bother to resolve such genuine request of the complainant.
“Hence we hold both the opposite parties (Nokia and the retailer) guilty for gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and direct them to jointly and severally refund the amount of the handset amounting to Rs 37,000 and to further pay a compensation of Rs 25,000 for supplying a defective good and thereafter not replacing the same or to remove its defect to his satisfaction.
“They shall also pay a sum of Rs 5,000 qua the cost of the proceedings,” the bench presided by M C Mehra said. Arora in his complaint had alleged that the phone, a Nokia E 90 Communicator bought in July 2007 for Rs 37,000, had poor incoming and outgoing audio right from the beginning.
more: http://www.financialexpress.com/news/defective-mobile-nokia-to-pay-rs-67k/995351/

In another decision by the New Delhi Consumer Court, Maruti has been slapped with a fine of Rs one lakh. for false claims as to fuel efficiency of Zen Card Model through advertisements in 2004.
The consumer alleged that Maruti in its advertisement in a newspaper had claimed a fuel efficiency of 16.7 km per litre for its Zen cars, relying on which the purchase decision was made by the complainant in 2005. But the car gave a mileage of 10.2 km per litre only which did not improve over the years even.
Hon’ble president C.K. Chaturvedi and bench said MUL had “adopted the mileage (in the advertisement) to its advantage without a corresponding clear information to consumers that this is not vouchsafed by Maruti itself.
Such advertisements enhance sales enormously by inducing consumer without corresponding benefits. In our view opposite party MUL explained Auto Car Sales data to exploit consumers and is guilty of unfair trade practice.
“We award a compensation of Rs 1,00,000 to complainant (Sharma) for this unfair trade practice and direct Maruti Suzuki to do its own authentic fuel efficiency test and state margin of error, in future advertisements, where it claims fuel efficiency per kilometer of a particular model of car,” the bench also comprising member S R Chaudhary said.
source: http://www.business-standard.com/generalnews/news/mul-to-pay-rs-1-l-for-wrong-fuel-efficiency-advertisement/47196/

The HDFC Bank has been asked by a district consumer forum here to pay “exemplary damages” of Rs one lakh to one of its credit card holders for harassing him by raising an “illegal” demand of Rs 46,490 for a purchase that was never made.

The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, has made a landmark judgment by asking HDFC Bank to pay Rs 1 Lakh as exemplary damages to one of its customers for harassing him by raising a false credit card bill for Rs 46,490.
The demand was raised by the bank after a person went to a computer store to buy a laptop with complainant’s credit card number, but doubting the credential of the person, the shop owner did not sell him the laptop and informed the bank about the incident, i.e. the disputed transaction of Rs 46,490 never took place because the store owner neither sold the laptop nor raised any demand from the bank. Yet the bank raised an illegal demand from Mishra and forced him into litigation, said the consumer forum.
“The opposite party 2 (computer store) has not raised any demand from the bank nor has the bank paid any transaction amount for the laptop to the store. In these circumstances, there was no question of liability coming on complainant’s (Mishra) use of credit card.
“Counsel for opposite party 1 (HDFC Bank) is unable to defend the action of the bank. Accordingly, we hold the demand as illegal and hold it guilty of not only defending the demand negligently made (by it) since 2008, but also forcing a litigation on the complainant,” said the bench, presided by C K Chaturvedi. “We award an exemplary damage of Rs 1 lakh for harassment of the complainant by its (bank’s) careless attitude without application of mind,” the forum added.
source: http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/wire-news/hdfc-bank-to-pay-finers-1lk-for-raising-illegal-demand_746590.html