The Delhi High Court has imposed a ₹50,000 fine on the Customs Department for “unnecessarily harassing” two firms whose imported body-massagers were seized after being wrongly classified as sex toys. 

The Court reiterated its earlier direction for release of the seized consignments and directed CBIC to frame a uniform policy to govern import of “body massagers” or “sex toys.”

Customs had seized the products, asserting they were battery-operated devices intended for sexual use and contending that the importers lacked required approvals from DCGI, and failed to obtain an EPR certificate under the Battery Waste Management Rules, 2022. 

[Techsync v. The Superintendent of Customs SIIB]

The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has imposed a ₹1 lakh penalty on Reliance JioMart for misleading advertisements related to uncertified walkie-talkies, by failing to provide mandatory details on licensing, frequency range, and equipment type approval (ETA/WPC certification).

The authority held that the platform engaged in misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The regulatory body found that the e-commerce platform violated consumer protection laws by marketing wireless communication devices without proper certification from the telecommunications authority, potentially endangering users and violating spectrum regulations. 

CCPA also took adverse note of non-cooperation, observing that JioMart ignored notices and failed to provide ETA/WPC certification details despite repeated reminders.

The Thrissur Consumer Commission has held Ola Electric Technologies and its authorized dealer liable for a manufacturing defect in an electric scooter, directing them to either replace the vehicle or refund its full cost with applicable compensation.

The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising C.T. Sabu (President), Sreeja S., and Ram Mohan R. found the company guilty of deficiency in service after the scooter developed multiple technical faults soon after purchase, despite repeated repair attempts.

The forum held that Ola failed to rectify the defects within the warranty period, entitling the buyer for a replacement or refund.

A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Delhi directed Lenovo Private Limited to pay ₹45,000 to a consumer after his laptop continued to face display issues despite repeated repairs under its two-year extended warranty.

The Commission held that recurring defects within the warranty period indicated a manufacturing flaw and amounted to “deficiency in service” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

It ordered Lenovo to pay ₹25,000 with 9% interest per annum, ₹10,000 as compensation for mental harassment, and ₹10,000 towards litigation costs.

[Mohd. Danish v. Lenovo Private Limited & Anr.]

The Kerala High Court has addressed regulatory requirements for goods sold at Sabarimala, emphasizing that all weighted items and prepackaged products must comply with legal metrology standards.

It noted that the Legal Metrology Act regulates the trade of goods sold or distributed by weight, measure, or number.

The court directed authorities to ensure proper labeling, accurate weighing, and transparent pricing for all commodities offered to pilgrims during the temple festival season.

The Court was informed that, pursuant to its direction, the executive magistrate and legal metrology officer have issued instructions to carry out seizure, search, and prosecution strictly in accordance with the Act.

[Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.]

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that Indian Railways bears equal responsibility for passenger safety across all classes, rejecting the notion that liability diminishes for general coach travelers compared to first-class passengers.

The Court emphasized that every passenger, regardless of the class in which they are traveling, is entitled to the same standards of safety, care, and vigilance from the Railway Administration.

The court further underscored that the fundamental right to safe travel applies uniformly, irrespective of ticket price, and directed compensation for victims of a train accident without any class-based discrimination. 

The Chandigarh Consumer Commission has held BYJU’s liable for deficiency in service after it failed to deliver the complete educational package promised to a parent who had purchased a four-year study plan for his daughter. 

Despite timely cancellation and repeated follow-ups, essential materials, including live classes, books, and the tablet, were not provided.

Relying on NCDRC precedents, the Commission ruled that private coaching services cannot retain fees when services are not delivered. 

The Court directed BYJU’s to refund ₹80,000 with 9% interest and pay ₹20,000 as compensation.

The Delhi State Consumer Commission held Tata AIG liable for unjustified repudiation of a Toyota Fortuner theft claim. 

The insurer denied the claim, alleging “gross negligence” because a spare key was left in the dashboard, but the Commission found this was not a fundamental breach since the vehicle was properly locked. 

The Court directed Tata AIG to pay 75% of the IDV (₹16.56 lakh) plus ₹1 lakh compensation and ₹50,000 costs, with interest applicable for non-compliance.

[Vijay Gupta V Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd]

The Supreme Court held that companies purchasing software for running or enhancing their business operations do not fall within the definition of “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and therefore cannot maintain consumer complaints.

The Court observed that software procured to streamline commercial functions constitutes a purchase for a commercial purpose, which the statute expressly excludes from consumer protection. It clarified that only software acquired for personal or non-commercial use may qualify for consumer remedies.

Business entities alleging deficiencies in such commercial software transactions must approach civil courts or invoke contractual mechanisms instead of consumer forums.

[M/s Poly Medicure Ltd. v. M/s Brillio Technologies Pvt. Ltd.]

The Supreme Court held that a company purchasing software to manage or automate its business operations is not a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The case arose from a complaint alleging software malfunction, but the Court found that the program was used for export documentation, consignment tracking, foreign exchange management and statutory compliance, all directly linked to the company’s commercial activities.

The Bench ruled that such software is acquired for a commercial purpose and therefore falls outside the consumer definition. Since the dominant purpose was to enhance business efficiency, the company could not claim consumer rights.

[Poly Medicure Ltd v Vembu Technologies Pvt Ltd]

The Chandigarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held Paladin Systems liable for deficiency in service after it failed to repair a customer’s mobile phone within a reasonable time and refused to provide a standby device during the repair period.

The Commission directed the company to refund the charged repair amount with interest and further ordered compensation for mental agony and harassment caused by the delay and poor service.

The Court observed that service providers are bound to act with reasonable care and must ensure customer convenience during repairs. Failure to provide an alternative device or timely repair constituted an unfair trade practice under consumer protection law.

The Delhi High Court refused to pass any interim orders allowing JNTL Consumer Health (the Indian subsidiary of American healthcare giant Johnson & Johnson), to sell its stock of ORSL Electrolyte Drink, worth nearly Rs. 100 Crore.

The Court upheld the FSSAI directive prohibiting beverages from using misleading ORS labels, noting that such branding could deceive diarrhoea patients into mistaking them for medical oral rehydration solutions.

Rejecting JNTL’s plea, the Bench recorded that the company had already halted production and intended to rebrand the product.

The Delhi High Court restrained Patanjali Ayurved Limited from airing or publishing its “Chyawanprash” advertisement that labelled competing products as “dhoka,” following a plea by Dabur India Limited.

The Court observed that while comparative advertising is legally permissible, the impugned ad went beyond comparison and amounted to commercial disparagement by maligning an entire class of products.

The Court held that such advertising misleads consumers and violates fair trade principles. The Court directed Patanjali to remove the advertisement from all platforms within 72 hours and barred it from issuing similar ads until further orders, ensuring adherence to responsible advertising standards.

[Dabur India Limited v Patanjali Ayurved Limited & Anr.]

The Dharamshala Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission imposed a ₹1 lakh fine on Thai Lion Air for denying drinking water to two children during a six-hour flight to Bangkok, causing severe discomfort.

The complainant alleged that the airline not only failed to provide basic amenities but also unilaterally rescheduled the flight, leading to financial loss.

Holding the airline guilty of deficiency in service and mental harassment, the forum directed compensation to the complainant.

The order was passed ex parte, as the airline failed to appear despite being duly served with notice.

[Tarun Kumar Chaurasia v Thai Lion Air & Anr.]