Consumer Rights News and Legal Guidance

Consumer Rights

Belagavi Consumer Commission Holds redBus, Bus Operator Liable After Breakdown Mid-Journey

The Belagavi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that redBus and Pauls Travels were jointly liable for deficiency in service after the bus booked by the complainants broke down mid-journey and no alternate transport was provided.

The Court held that redBus could not escape liability as there existed a clear commercial tie-up and privity of contract between the booking platform and the bus operator.

The Commission directed a full refund of the ticket amount with interest at 8 percent per annum, awarded ₹20,000 as compensation for mental agony, and granted ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.

The Court held that online booking platforms share responsibility when services booked through them fail.

[Ashok Kadam & Ors. v. redBus India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.]

Read Details / 13 hours ago

MananBookmark

CCPA Fines Flipkart, Meta ₹10 Lakh Each Over Undisclosed Walkie-Talkie Listings

The Central Consumer Protection Authority imposed penalties of ₹10 lakh each on Flipkart and Meta Platforms for hosting walkie-talkie listings that lacked mandatory disclosures on licensing and regulatory compliance.

The action was taken after the Authority found that consumers were not properly informed about the legal conditions governing the use of such devices.

The Authority noted that walkie-talkies are regulated telecom equipment under the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, and allied rules, with licensing exemptions applicable only to specified devices.

It held that the failure to disclose these requirements amounted to a breach of due diligence obligations under the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020, constituting misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Read Details / a day ago

Thanush SBookmark

Kerala High Court Grants Relief to Actor Mohanlal in Manappuram Finance Case

The Kerala High Court quashed consumer proceedings against actor Mohanlal arising from allegations that Manappuram Finance charged higher interest rates than those advertised in campaigns featuring him as brand ambassador.

The Court held that mere status as an endorser does not attract liability for unfair trade practices unless a direct nexus between the endorser and the transaction is established.

It clarified that grievances regarding misleading advertisements may be pursued under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Read Details / 5 days ago

MananBookmark

Kerala High Court Absolves Actor Mohanlal in Manappuram Finance False Advertisement Case

The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings against actor Mohanlal in a case alleging false advertisement by Manappuram Finance Ltd.

The Court held that merely endorsing a product does not automatically attract criminal liability unless there is material to show knowledge or intent to mislead consumers.

It observed that the complaint did not disclose any specific role played by the actor in formulating or approving the allegedly misleading claims.

In the absence of prima facie evidence establishing mens rea or direct involvement, the Court ruled that continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

[Mohanlal v. State of Kerala]

Read Judgment / 7 days ago

MahiraBookmark

Breach of Guest Privacy: Consumer Commission Orders Leela Palace Udaipur to Pay ₹10 Lakh Compensation

The Chennai North District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Leela Palace, Udaipur, liable for breach of guest privacy, terming it a clear deficiency in hospitality services.

A Chennai-based lawyer had booked a grand room for ₹55,500 on a non-refundable basis. During her stay on January 27, 2025, a housekeeping staff member entered the occupied room using a master key without consent while the guest and her husband were in the washroom.

Rejecting the hotel’s defence of internal SOPs and lack of malicious intent, the Commission held the service to be fundamentally defective.

It directed refund of ₹55,500 with 9% interest, ₹10,000 as litigation costs, and ₹10 lakh as compensation.

[SN v. Schloss Udaipur Pvt. Ltd.]

Read Details / 10 days ago

Thanush SBookmark

NCDRC Holds Ludhiana Hospital and Doctors Accountable for Surgery Without Confirmed Diagnosis

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has upheld a 2018 order of the Punjab State Consumer Commission holding Ludhiana Hospital, its surgeons, and pathologists from Dayanand Medical College liable for medical negligence.

The case concerned a radical facial surgery for suspected cancer conducted solely on a pathology report that was merely “suggestive of malignant melanoma” and clearly required immunohistochemistry confirmation.

The procedure resulted in permanent facial disfigurement and lasting trauma to the patient.

While affirming liability, the NCDRC declined to enhance the ₹55 lakh compensation, excluded one surgeon due to limited involvement, and increased litigation costs to ₹5 lakh.

[Kanwalpreet Kaur v. Dayanand Medical College & Ors.]

Read Details / 17 days ago

Thanush SBookmark

Delhi High Court Temporarily Injuncts Sale of Copycat “Little Hearts” Biscuits, Grants Relief to Britannia

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of Britannia Industries Limited, restraining Shri Swastik Organics and its associates from manufacturing, selling, or marketing biscuits under the name “Little Hearts” or using an identical heart-shaped design.

The Court found that the defendants had dishonestly adopted Britannia’s mark, product shape, and trade channels, creating a likelihood of consumer confusion. It observed that the case involved “triple identity” of mark, product, and consumers, and that denial of interim relief would cause irreparable harm to Britannia.

The Court also directed Amazon to remove infringing listings from its platform.

The injunction will continue until further orders, with the matter listed next on May 21, 2026.

[Britannia Industries Ltd v. Shri Swastik Organics & Ors.]

Read order / 17 days ago

MahiraBookmark

CCPA Fines China Gate ₹50,000 For Forced Service Charge & Orders Software Changes

The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has imposed a ₹50,000 penalty on China Gate Restaurant Private Limited and directed the removal of the default service charge from bills issued at its Bora Bora outlet.

The penalty arose from a consumer grievance on the National Consumer Helpline alleging a forced 10% software-added service charge despite the 2022 CCPA guidelines upheld by the Delhi High Court in NRAI v Union of India in March 2025.

It held that software-embedded commands made the charge involuntary. Despite issuing refunds and displaying “no service charge” notices, the default billing continued.

The authority directed modification of the billing software and submission of a compliance report within 15 days.

Read Order / 18 days ago

Thanush SBookmark

Delhi High Court Restrains Alleged Impersonators From Using Akasa Air Marks

The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to SNV Aviation Pvt. Ltd., operator of Akasa Air, restraining multiple entities from impersonating the airline and misusing its trademarks to run recruitment scams.

Justice Manmeet Arora held that a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement, passing off, and deception was made out.

The Court noted that the defendants falsely represented themselves as Akasa Air agents, demanded “process fees,” and used deceptively similar marks and domain names.

To prevent further public harm, the Court directed suspension of infringing websites, blocking of linked mobile numbers and UPI IDs, and disclosure of KYC details by service providers.

[SNV Aviation v. Alaska Aviation Academy]

Read Order / 19 days ago

MananBookmark

CCPA Fines Vision IAS ₹11 Lakh for Misleading UPSC Result Ads Treating It as Repeat Offence

The Central Consumer Protection Authority penalised Vision IAS Rs 11 lakh for misleading UPSC CSE result advertisements, marking its first instance of a higher penalty for a repeat violation.

The ads claimed “7 in Top 10 & 79 in Top 100 selections in CSE 2023” and “39 in Top 50 selections in CSE 2022,” prominently featuring candidates’ names, photographs, and ranks, creating the impression that enrolment in Vision IAS foundation courses led to top results.

The Authority found that out of 119+ featured candidates from 2022–23, only three enrolled in foundation courses, while most had availed limited services such as test series or mock interviews.

It held that failure to disclose this distinction was misleading and capable of influencing consumer decisions.

Read Details / 19 days ago

Thanush SBookmark

Kota Consumer Commission Orders Forensic Test of Salman Khan’s Alleged Signature in Pan Masala Ad Case

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kota has ordered a forensic examination of actor Salman Khan’s alleged signature on documents linked to a pan masala advertisement.

The direction was issued while hearing a consumer complaint alleging misleading endorsement and unfair trade practices. The Commission said a forensic test was necessary to determine whether the actor had authorised the use of his name and signature in the promotional material.

It observed that establishing the authenticity of the documents is crucial for fixing liability in the case.

The Commission directed the concerned authorities to conduct the examination and submit a report, after which further proceedings will continue.

Read Details / 21 days ago

MahiraBookmark

Kerala Consumer Forum Directs Air Asia to Refund Fare and Pay ₹10,000 Compensation for Cancelled Flight

The Thrissur District Consumer Commission has held Air Asia liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to issue an automatic refund after cancelling a flight for operational reasons.

The Commission ruled that airlines are required to refund the full fare immediately when a flight is cancelled, unless the passenger chooses an alternative arrangement.

Criticising Air Asia’s ineffective refund mechanism, it directed the airline to refund ₹2,983 with interest.

Air Asia was also ordered to pay ₹10,000 as compensation for mental agony and ₹2,500 towards litigation costs.

[Yadavu PB v. Air Asia]

30 days ago

MananBookmark

Chandigarh Consumer Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Airtel Over International Roaming Charge

The Chandigarh District Consumer Commission dismissed a complaint against Bharti Airtel over a ₹649 international roaming charge, holding that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.

The Commission noted that the amount was levied towards auto-activation of an international roaming daily limit pack, in accordance with the terms agreed by the subscriber and TRAI safeguards designed to prevent bill shock.

Since the complainant was travelling abroad and did not dispute the applicable contractual conditions, the Commission found the charge justified and rejected the complaint.

Read Details / 30 days ago

MananBookmark

District Commission Cannot Accept Written Version Beyond Statutory 45-Day Period: Tamil Nadu State Commission

The Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, set aside an order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (South), which had accepted the written version of the opposite party beyond the statutory period of 45 days prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The State Commission held that the timeline for filing a written version is mandatory and not directory, and consumer forums lack the jurisdiction to condone delays beyond the maximum period stipulated by law.

It reiterated that adherence to strict timelines is essential to ensure expeditious disposal of consumer disputes and that any acceptance of pleadings beyond the statutory limit defeats the object of the Act.

a month ago

MahiraBookmark

Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Hospitals Challenging Kerala Clinical Establishments Act

The Supreme Court granted interim relief to private hospitals by directing that no coercive action be taken against them for non-compliance with a Kerala High Court judgment mandating disclosure of services and treatment rates at hospital receptions and websites.

The Court sought responses from the Centre and the Kerala government on the challenge to the directions issued under the Kerala Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2018.

It also impleaded the Union Health Ministry as a party and posted the matter for further hearing on February 3, 2026.

a month ago

MahiraBookmark