Case Study On Consumerism 341k14

Gutka pouch in bottle: Pepsi asked to compensate consumer Oct 1 …. 2013 AHMEDABAD: A consumer court in Gujarat has asked Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd to pay Rs 20,000 to a consumer, who found a gutka pouch floating inside the packed soft drink bottle he had purchased.

Rajesh Rajan purchased a bottle of Pepsi from a local store in Ahmedabad in August 2008, but he found a gutka pouch inside the bottle. He dashed off a legal notice to the company accusing it of deficiency in service that could cause health hazard for consumers. The multinational giant even replied to the notice, but a year later. Rajan approached a Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad (rural) and demanded Rs 5 lakh from the company towards compensation. During the hearing, the consumer forum sent the sample to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation's laboratory for analysis. After hearing the case, the consumer forum asked the company to return the amount of Rs 8 back to Rajan. Besides, the forum also asked the company to pay Rs 4,000 towards compensation for causing mental torture and towards litigation cost. Rajan was not happy with the amount. He moved Gujarat state's Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and complained that Rs 4,008 was too meager an amount towards compensation, particularly when he had spent Rs 500 after sample testing. He also argued that the company should be fined in the manner that sets an example in the society that those who are deficient in service should be taught a lesson. The commission asked the company to pay Rs 20,000 to Rajan towards compensation and Rs 2,000 towards litigation cost. Earlier this year, the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad (rural) asked this company to deposit Rs 20,000 with the State Consumer Welfare Fund after its soft drink was found contaminated.

AHMEDABAD: A consumer court in the city has fined Pepsico Holding India Pvt Ltd with Rs 20,000 after its soft drink was found contaminated. The multi-national giant has been asked to deposit the amount with the State Consumer Welfare Fund. The complaint against the company was filed by one Gautam Trivedi, who purchased a bottle of soft drink at a price of Rs 15 from Mahalaxmi Nashta House in Naroda. He also got the bill against the purchase. When he found some object inside the bottle, he requested the store keeper to change it, but this did not happen. Trivedi moved the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad (rural) and demanded Rs 60,000 from the company towards compensation for deficiency in service. He also urged the consumer court to impose a penalty of Rs 2 lakh on the company. tnn After hearing the case and perusal of documents in the form of certificates issued by public health laboratory on examination of the food item, the consumer court concluded that it was unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on part of the company. It asked the company to deposit Rs 20,000 with the state fund as penalty. Besides, the company has been asked to pay Rs 3,000 to the complainant towards mental harassment. Interestingly, the court also asked the company to return Rs 15 to the complainant with 8% interest.

The complaint against the company was filed by one Gautam Trivedi, who purchased a bottle of soft drink at a price of Rs 15 from Mahalaxmi Nashta House in Naroda. He also got the bill against the purchase. When he found some object inside the bottle, he requested the store keeper to change it, but this did not happen. Trivedi moved the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad (rural) and demanded Rs 60,000 from the company towards compensation for deficiency in service. He also urged the consumer court to impose a penalty of Rs 2 lakh on the company. After hearing the case, the consumer court asked the company to deposit Rs 20,000 with the state fund as penalty. Besides, the company has been asked to pay Rs 3,000 to the complainant towards mental harassment. Interestingly, the court also asked the company to return Rs 15 to the complainant with 8% interest.

Cadbury ordered to pay Rs.30,000 to man who found a pin in chocolate bar

AGARTALA: A consumer court in Tripura has ordered Cadbury India Ltd to pay a compensation of Rs.30, 000 to a complainant who found an iron pin inside a chocolate bar made by the company, an official said here Wednesday. "A man purchased a Cadbury chocolate on Dec 16, 2011, for his three-year-old daughter and found an iron pin inside the bar when the girl tried to eat it. Subsequently, he filed a complaint before a consumer forum," a food department official told reporters in Agartala. "After conducting a hearing, the west Tripura district consumer disputes redressal forum last week ordered Cadbury India Ltd to pay a compensation of Rs.30, 000 to the complainant within a month." The forum, which in its judgment said the chocolate was hazardous, also asked the chocolate company to pay Rs.1, 000 to the complainant towards the cost of litigation. Story First Published: May 22, 2013 13:47 IS

McDonalds India to pay Rs 15,000 for delivering the wrong burger February 1, 2013 by Desh Kapoor Leave a Comment

Companies can no longer take the Indian customers for granted. They cannot just treat them easily. Here is an interesting case where McDonalds in India delivered a nonvegetarian burger to a customer even though she had ordered vegetarian. She was awarded Rs 15,000 for the negligence. Fast food giant McDonald’s has been directed by a consumer forum here to pay Rs 15,000 as compensation to one of its customers for delivering a non-veg burger instead of the vegetarian one she had ordered. The South West District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum said, “By delivering her a nonvegetarian burger instead of the vegetarian burger ordered by her is a gross negligence on the part of the delivery-crew-member, whose conduct is tantamount to deficiency-in-service. “Allowing the complaint, we direct the opposite party (McDonald’s) to pay to the complainant Rs 10,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 as cost of litigation,” the bench presided by Narendra Kumar said

NEW DELHI: Fast food giant McDonald's has been directed by a consumer forum here to pay Rs 15,000 as compensation to one of its customers for delivering a non-veg burger instead of the vegetarian one she had ordered. The South West District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum said, "By delivering her a non-vegetarian burger instead of the vegetarian burger ordered by her is a gross negligence on the part of the delivery-crew-member, whose conduct is tantamount to deficiency-inservice. "Allowing the complaint, we direct the opposite party (McDonald's) to pay to the complainant Rs 10,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 as cost of litigation," the bench presided by Narendra Kumar said. The order came on the plea of Delhi resident Vimal Chaudhary who had alleged that she had ordered for two vegetarian burgers, but she was delivered one non-vegetarian and one vegetarian burgers.

She had said that she realised it was a non-veg burger only after eating half of it and thereafter, she had started vomiting. The woman had also alleged that being an Arya Samaj follower and a Hindu, eating the nonvegetarian food has hurt her emotionally and she also suffered religiously. In its defence, the McDonald's had contended that the woman had wilfully accepted the non-veg burger instead of the vegetarian one ordered by her. The forum, however, rejected the contention, saying had she wanted a non-veg burger she would have ordered one

Consumer forum directs Nokia to pay Rs 67k to a customer for selling defective mobile NEW DELHI: Nokia India has been directed by a city district consumer forum to pay Rs 67,000 to one of its customers for selling him a "defective" cell phone and then failing to repair it or refund its price. The South-II District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forumheld Nokia guilty of indulging in unfair trade practice for selling a defective phone and then 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. The forum also held retailer Luthra Communications guilty of resorting to unfair trade practice. "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 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 tly 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 towards the cost of the proceedings," the bench presided by MC 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 quality right from the beginning. He had returned the mobile to Nokia in September 2007 to replace it or repair the defect, he had said adding that the handset was replaced with an old instrument which also had the same problem.

He had also alleged that Nokia flatly refused to refund the cost of the phone. Nokia was proceeded against ex-parte as it had appeared only once before the forum

Dead insects in bottle: Coca-Cola fined Rs 1.2 lakh Friday, 28 April 2006 - 5:45pm

Soft drink manufacturer Coca-Cola was on Friday ordered by a city consumer court to pay over Rs one lakh after a man found dead insects in an unopened bottle of Sprite. NEW DELHI: Soft drink manufacturer Coca-Cola was on Friday ordered by a city consumer court to pay over Rs 1 lakh after a man found dead insects in an unopened bottle of Sprite d as the company's top product in the softdrink market. "It seems that giant companies have only focussed their eyes on their one-point programme -- make money. For that end they will even play with the public's health," District Consumer Redressal Forum (North) comprising president KK Chopra and RK Prabhakar and Neeru Mittal said. The complainant had ed the case against Coca-Cola Company, Atlanta, USA; Hindustan Coca Cold Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd; local manufacturer Moon Beverages Ltd and Suri Cold Drink, the retail outlet from which the complainant had purchased the contaminated drink. Directing Coca-Cola and its three ancilliaries to pay the damages "tly or severally", the forum directed them to pay Rs 1 lakh to the Consumer Legal Aid Fund here and Rs 20,000 towards the complainant towards mental agony caused to him. This judgement follows an earlier one by the same forum ordering identical compensation against softdrink major Pepsico after a consumer chanced upon a condom in a sealed Pepsi bottle.

The complainant, Atul Khattar, a resident of Malka Ganj here, had on August 10, 2003, purchased the bottle from the oultet near Sarai Rohilla locality in the capital. Khattar, who then happened to take a glance at the sealed bottle, was shocked to find dead insects floating in bottle. Subsequently, Khatter filed a complaint with the district forum seeking over Rs five lakh damages for negligence and deficiency in service. In defence, Coca-Cola denied any liabilty towards the complainant claiming that the brand Sprite was not their product. The court effectively countered this argument by annexing as proof certified copies of prints taken from an authorised Cola web site advertising Sprite as a "youth icon" possessing "a straightforward and honest attitude". It further warned Coca-Cola of legal action regarding perjury for deliberately attempting to mislead the court by submitting "false affidavits" before it. "Coca-Cola has avoided and denied in their affidavits aspects of manufacturing of the soft drink, and the filing of false affidavits before this forum makes it a clear-cut case of perjury," the court said. It brushed aside Coca-Cola's contention that the bottle may have been manufactured by unscrupulous people bent on spoiling the company's reputation. "Coca-Cola is vicariously responsible for the spurious manufacturing of Sprite and cannot absolve itself from the prescribed standards of purity as per relevant law," the forum observed. It also directed the sofdrink major to the complainant pay Rs 3,000 as litigation costs.