The
following are some of the decisions under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
[1] In Bank
of Baroda v. Parasram Mangaram. (I (1999) CPJ 79 (NC)) it has been held that
the current bank account which was signed only by the respondent in capacity of
partner M/s. Mangaram & Sons and no one else, cannot be freezed in its
operation at the instance of any other person or persons except the one who had
signed the account opening form in absence of any injunction of Court.
[2] The
facts of the case in Indian Airlines Corporation v. Abdul Majid and another,
(II (1993) 251 (NC)) are that a wait listed ticket holder of Indian Airlines upon
his ticket having been confirmed on the date of the journey boarded the flight
and occupied the seat allotted on his boarding card. Sometime later the duty
officer of Indian Airlines along with other officers forcefully ejected the
complainant from the aircraft and in the
process the shirt of the passenger was torn off and he was humiliated. Against
this action of the Indian Airlines, the passenger filed a complaint with the
Tamil Nadu State Commission and the Commission held that there was deficiency
of service on the part of the Indian Airlines which has been upheld by the
National Commission, in appeal.
[3] In Air
Exports India, (III (NC)) first appeal the decision of the France v. Patel
(1996) CPJ 143 was filed against Tamil Nadu State Commission allowing the
complaint against the airlines for delivering the consignment to M/s. Rovi
Fashion through its handling agent without proper endorsement of the airway
bill in its favour. Affirming the impungeci decision and dismissing the appeal.
the National Commission upheld the State Commission finding that there had been
gross deficiency in service on the part of the airlines and its handling agent
in making delivery of the goods without production of the endorsed original
airway bill as was specifically required under the terms of the contract of
carriage entered into between the parties.
[4] It has
been held by the National Commission in Harmohinder Singh v. Anil Sehgal and
another. (II (1999) CPJ 8 (NC)) that an airconditioner assembler dealer cannot
avoid his liability simply on the ground that he is not a manufacturer of the
defective compressor. A complaint lies against such assembler / dealer who
fails to carry out the terms of the warranty.
More,
No comments:
Post a Comment