WakeelSaab.in

Introduction    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Thrissur, Kerala (India), held AirAsia India Limited liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Facts and Background In this matter, a passenger's flight was cancelled by the airline for operational reasons. Under applicable rules (including those from India's Directorate General of Civil Aviation or DGCA, and the Consumer Protection Act), passengers are typically entitled to a full refund in such cases, and many airlines (including low-cost carriers like AirAsia) are expected to process automatic refunds promptly without requiring manual claims in straightforward cancellations. However, AirAsia failed to issue an automatic refund for the ticket amount (which was ₹2,983). The passenger made repeated attempts to obtain the refund but faced ongoing issues and harassment, ultimately having to approach the consumer forum to recover even this small sum. This caused financial loss, inconvenience, a...

INTRODUCTION Supreme Court recently held a photocopy of a document is no evidence in the eyes of law—refers to a principle reiterated by the Supreme Court of India in recent judgments, particularly emphasized in a ruling reported around early February 2026. Facts   A civil appeal involving a disputed sale based on a photocopied Power of Attorney, the Court clearly stated: “A photocopy of a document is no evidence unless the same is proved by following the procedure set out.” This aligns with longstanding Indian evidence law under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now largely carried forward into the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, effective from July 1, 2024), but the recent affirmation has been widely discussed in legal circles. Observations   Under Indian law: Primary evidence → The original document itself (Section 62 / equivalent in new law). Secondary evidence → Includes photocopies / certified copies / other copies (Section 63), but admissible only under specific conditi...

INTRODUCTION   The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) recently ruled in a case where a car dealer unfairly retained a booking advance after a consumer cancelled due to indefinite delivery delays. This was deemed a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Facts and Background  The Complainant booked a Mahindra Thar in July 2022 and paid an advance of ₹21,000 to the dealer. Due to prolonged and indefinite delays in delivery, he followed up multiple times and eventually cancelled the booking, requesting a refund. The dealer refused to return the amount despite repeated requests. Observations  The Commission, along with members, ordered the dealer (opposite parties) to: Refund the booking advance of ₹21,000 along with 12% interest per annum from the date of booking until realization/payment. Pay ₹15,000 as compensation for the mental agony, hardship, and inconvenience caused to the consumer. P...

INTRODUCTION The Madras High Court, in a judgment dated June 4, 2025, ruled that unsubstantiated allegations of sexual harassment leveled by a wife against her husband and father-in-law constitute mental cruelty, providing sufficient grounds for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.  Facts and Background   The couple married in September 2015 and had a son in July 2016. Marital disputes arose soon after, leading the husband to file for divorce in October 2017, alleging that the wife had lived with him for only about 51 days over the first two years of marriage, frequently returned to her parental home, was quarrelsome, verbally abusive, belittled his rural background, and imposed unreasonable demands such as requiring him to return home by 5 p.m. despite his job at an engineering college. He also claimed she threatened suicide and false dowry allegations,and forced him to resign from his job to join an IT company. The wife countered by filing for re...

Introduction A recent ruling by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–VI in New Delhi ordered a flight company to pay a total of ₹1.5 lakh in compensation related to poor service on a Delhi to New York flight. Facts and Background  Complainant and his daughter boarded the flight economy class tickets for the Delhi–New York–Delhi route in September 2023. The passengers described the experience as a "nightmare" or "horrible," alleging:   - Broken/uncomfortable seats.   - Malfunctioning in-flight entertainment systems.   - Unhygienic washrooms.   - Poor quality food service.   - Unresponsive or callous cabin crew. The complainant sought a full refund of the ticket price (around ₹3.18 lakh) plus ₹10 lakh in compensation for mental agony and harassment. Decision   The commission found deficiency in service by Air India, as the airline failed to provide basic facilities expected for the fare paid, causing mental agony and harassment. Air India ...