CAR DEALER PAYS PENALTY FOR NOT DELIVERING CAR IN TIME

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. Pay additional costs of the proceedings with the total compensation and costs amounting to ₹15,000 in the reported directives. The dealer was required to comply within 45 days from the order date.

Conclusion

This ruling was reported in mid-to-late January 2026. It highlights that car dealers cannot withhold booking amounts arbitrarily after cancellation prompted by their own delivery failures.

Comments

Parental disputes or pending matrimonial and criminal matters between the natural guardians cannot constitute a valid statutory reason for refusal to issue passport says Allahabad High Court

Facts and Background The case involved a minor child aged about 2 years at the time of application whose mother applied for her passport on January 17, 2025. Despite completing all required formalities, the passport authorities kept the application pending indefinitely. The reason cited was the ongoing matrimonial dispute and criminal cases between the child's parents (the natural guardians). The authorities essentially treated these parental conflicts as a ground to withhold progress on the minor's passport application. The mother approached the Allahabad High Court via a writ petition, seeking directions for expeditious processing and issuance. Observations of the Court Section 6 is Exhaustive and Mandatory Section 6 of the Passports Act, 1967, provides the complete and exclusive list of grounds on which a passport authority may refuse to issue a passport or travel document. - These grounds include matters like: ...

MARRIAGE REGISTRATION PROCESS IN DELHI

Hello friends today we shall talk about the procedure for registration of marriage in Delhi. ELIGIBILITY The marriage must have been solemnized either under the Hindu Marriage Act or under the Special Marriage Act, The Groom must have attained the minimum age of 21 years. The bride must be of the age of 18 years at least. DOCUMENTS REQUIRED Photo ID proofs of both the parties like Aadhar card / PAN card / Voter card Date of birth proofs of both parties like 10 th certificate, etc. Permanent address proof must be there . Marriage photographs and Invitation Card. Passport Size Photographs of both parties. 2 witness in case marriage registered under Hindu Marriage Act or 3 witnesses in case it is registered under the Special Marriage Act along with their respective proofs like PAN CARD/ AADHAR CARD etc. An affidavit from both parties certifying the date of their marriage and more specifically stating that the marriage has not been performed between pers...

DISTRICT COURT THRISSUR, KERALA HELD AIR ASIA LIABLE FOR DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES

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...

WakeelSaab.in

Search This Blog