Presentation showing the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Krishnan Kumar Bajaj vs. PepsiCo. case The judgment of Krishnan Kumar Bajaj vs. PepsiCo. Dharamdas Pritiani vs. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Case The Judgement of Dharamdas Pritiani vs. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Case. Chetanprakash vs MET Institute of Computer Science Case The Judgement of Chetanprakash vs MET Institute of Computer Science Case. HDFC Bank Limited vs. Balwinder Singh Case The Judgement of HDFC Bank Limited vs. Balwinder Singh Case. Delhi Development Authority vs. D.C. Sharma Case The Judgement of Delhi Development Authority vs. D.C. Sharma Case

1. CONSUMER PROTECTION
ACT,1986

2. Krishnan Kumar Bajaj vs. PepsiCo.

3. • Bajaj purchased a Lay’s packet and sensed it being underweight
• He wrote twice to the manufacturer who offered gift hamper in return
• Bajaj refused hamper and considered legal action
• Bajaj approached CERS, who wrote to PepsiCo
• Company refused to accept their fault and gave unsatisfactory clarifications
• CERS took the issue to the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
• The company asked for the bill of purchase which Bajaj could not produce
BBBBACKGROUND

4. JUDGEMENT
• The Court overruled the argument of Bajaj not having a bill
• PepsiCo was directed to stop unfair trade practices
• PepsiCo had to deposit Rs. 2,00,000 in Consumer Welfare Fund, Rs.
2,75,250 as Punitive Damages and also Rs. 75,000 as Costs of Litigation

5. Dharamdas Pritiani vs. HDFC Ergo General
Insurance Co.

6. • Pritiani was advised by his doctors to undergo a rare treatment called EECP for
his heart ailment in 2008-09
• The treatment was completed in 45 sittings, costing Rs. 1,18,000
• HDFC Ergo rejected the claim saying the treatment was not recognized by the
insurer and the policy holder must be hospitalized for at least 24 hours
• The complainant claimed treatment was recognized by the US and 40
hospitals in India use EECP method
BBBBACKGROUND

7. JUDGEMENT
• The forum said the documents furnished by Pritiani support his claim
• Consumer Redressal Forum directed HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd
to pay Rs 1,18,000 towards compensation for refusing a policy holder’s
claim
• Additional compensation of Rs 5000 to be paid for mental agony

8. Chetanprakash vs MET Institute of
Computer Science

9. • Prakash ,final year BSc student sought admission in MET Institute of Comp.
Science for MCS before declaration of his final year result
• The institute laid a condition, that in order to pursue the MCS course, a
student had to clear final year exams
• Prakash deposited the fees before declaration of result and failed in exams
• He tried to withdraw the admission and requested for a refund, to which the
institute did not respond
BBBBACKGROUND

10. JUDGEMENT
The Court gave a judgment directing the Institute, to pay the complainant,
Chetan Prakash, Rs. 32,000 as compensation for harassment, along with the
course fee of Rs.62,200.

11. HDFC Bank Limited vs. Balwinder
Singh

12. • Balwinder Singh took a car loan from HDFC Bank Ltd but after a few
installments were paid he defaulted
• The bank, or its loan recovery agent, employed musclemen to take forcible
repossession of the hypothecated vehicle on 20.7.2007
• This vehicle was also sold subsequent to re -possession for Rs. 1,65,000
BBBBACKGROUND

13. JUDGEMENT
• The District Forum directed that Rs. 4 lakhs be paid as compensation for
mental and physical harassment
• The cost of re -possession i.e. Rs. 1,65,000 was realized by the petitioner
• The OPs shall not be entitled to any interest with effect from that date on
the amount remaining unpaid after adjusting the sale price of Rs. 1,65,000
• The OPs were directed to return the cheques received by them and to
redraw the account of the complainant and ascertain the principal amount
due from him on 20.7.2007 and adjust the amount of Rs. 1,65,000 towards
the principal amount. The remaining amount, if any, shall be adjusted out of
the compensation amount of Rs. 4,00,000

14. Delhi Development Authority vs.
D.C. Sharma

15. • Sharma had applied in 1996 for a flat under a housing scheme floated by the
DDA that year
• In 1997 he had been allotted a flat after he had paid Rs 30,000 towards
booking and confirmation as demanded by the authority
• He was given time till June 2000 to deposit the remaining amount, but on
enquiry about the status of his flat he had come to know it had been sold to
someone else in 1996
BBBBACKGROUND

16. JUDGEMENT
• The DDA was directed to provide a flat or pay him Rs 30 lakhs for selling
the unit allotted to him to someone else
• The commission also directed the DDA to refund Rs 30,000 received
towards booking and confirmation from D C Sharma

17. SHIVAM SHARMA
PGDM
SECTION D