Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
Raja Harpal Singh vs Bata Shoe Store on 5 November, 2024 cites

Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) vs Sahil Dawar on 22 December, 2020

12. To support our observation, we also rely on the case of Big Bazaar Vs. Sahil Dawal (NCDRC, RP no. 975/2020 decide on 22.12.2020), wherein it was DISMISSED PAGE 16 OF 18 RP/19/2023 D.O.D.: 05.11.2024 MR. RAJA HARPAL SINGH VS. BATA SHOE STORE & BATA INDIA LIMITED held by the Hon'ble NCDRC that the store cannot charge for carry bag without prominent prior notice and information before the consumer makes his choice of patronizing its retail outlets and before the consumer makes his selection of goods for purchase, as also without disclosing the salient specifications and price of the carry bags. In the present case, the paper carry bag provided by the Opposite Party complies with the requirements outlined in the aforesaid judgment, as it displays not only the MRP but also includes additional details such as the bar code, article number, product name, manufacturing details, date of manufacture, and contact information for consumer complaints. Therefore, these disclosures ensure that the consumer is fully informed regarding the carry bag, fulfilling both transparency and legal obligations.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 12 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Dr. Uttam Kumar Samanta vs Vodafone India Ltd. on 12 April, 2017

It is a settled law that the Complainant filed under CPA 2019, is meant for saving consumer from being exploited and it is not meant for windfall or making purchaser millionaire overnight. CPA, 2019 is a welfare registration and is not meant to be a tool to wrong gains. The compensation sought by the Complainant is dis- appropriately high and the Complainant has not given any proper justification for the same, In our opinion, prayer for high compensation and cost without proper justification by the Complainant herein is not correct and is to be discouraged. For this, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the matter of Dr. Uttam Kumar Samanta vs. Vodafone East Limited [FA 847/2017 decided on 05.10.2018]. However, as the Complainant is a senior citizen, we are refraining from passing any adverse order on this aspect against the Complainant.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Bata India Ltd. vs B.V.Dinesh Kumar . on 1 September, 2014

In support, the Revisionist cited legal precedents such as Bata India Ltd. vs. Dinesh Prasad and Big Bazaar vs. Sahil Dawar, where consumer forums have held that sellers must provide carry bags free of charge to avoid unfair practices. The Revisionist also submitted that the Respondent did not provide a cardboard box for the purchased footwear, thus compelling the Complainant to pay for a carry bag--an act the Revisionist claims to be both unethical and unfair.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1