Legal cases with fixed pricing, standardized processes, and firm timelines
The Delhi State Consumer Redressal Commission held that the consumer courts are not enforced for enriching consumers. The order was passed by the state commission in an appeal filed by the resident of west delhi to enhance his compensation from Rs 10,000 awarded by the District Commission to Rs. 50,000.
Salma Noor, Member of the commission held that the compensation of Rs 50,000 is not justified as there is no documentary proof or evidence shown by the complainant to show that he has suffered the loss of Rs 50,000. The consumer courts are not meant for enriching the consumer.
In the present case, a toilet seat has been purchased by the complainant in the year 2011 for his disabled father but there was some problem in while flushing from the next day and after a month the seat got completely blocked.
The complainant has sought relief from the customer care of the company but the company did not paid any heed to the complaints of the complainant even after the heated arguments between the complainant and the executives of the company.
In July, 2017 the District Consumer Commission held that there is deficiency in the service and unfair trade practice adopted by the company and ordered the company to pay Rs 5000 as the cost of toilet seat, Rs 10,000 towards mental agony and Rs 5,000 as litigation cost.
The complainant filed an appeal against the order of the District Commission to enhance the compensation to Rs 50,000.
After hearing the appeal, it was held by the state commission that there is no illegality with the order of the district commission and it has already provided compensation and also refunded the amount of toilet seat to the complainant. Thus, the compensation provided by the district commission is adequate and enhancing of compensation to Rs 50,000 is not justified.