Case 1: Sony vs Dhanraj

A district consumer forum here has directedSony Indiaand its local service center inDelhi to
pay a customer the price of a high-end cellphone which got damaged by rain water despite the
company's advertisement claiming it to be water proof.

The district forum asked the company and the service center to pay Rs. 35,000, the cost of the
mobile, and Rs. 1,000 as compensation to westDelhiresident Dhanraj for refusing to repair his
mobile saying warranty had become void under the terms and conditions of purchase.

According to the complaint, on January 18, 2015, Dhanraj purchased aSonymobile phone from
a store for Rs. 35,000. On August 9, 2015, handset developed fault due to rain water despite its
port caps being closed.

When he approached the service center, he was told that the warranty had become void due to
water ingress and would be repaired on chargeable basis, the complaint said.

Sonyand the service center also asserted that warranty of the handset had become void as per
terms and conditions of the warranty and blamed the customer for negligently handling the
handset.

http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/sony-india-asked-for-refund-rs-35-000-for-
deficient-service-117012900231_1.html
Case 2: Patanjali vs Dabur

FMCG giant Dabur has waged war against its rival, Baba Ramdevs Patanjali Ayurved.
Newly emerging firm, Patanjali had sounded the war bugle with an advertisement, last
December, which claimed its honey brand is safer and cheaper than other brands in the
market. Patanjalis television advertisement displays a bottle of honey,that looks very
similar to a Dabur bottle, and goes on to claim that the price of Patanjalis product is
much cheaper than other brands. Its just Rs. 70 and not Rs 122 (the exact price of
Daburs product for its 250 gram pack), the ad claimed.

So it is Daburs turn now. Last month, Dabur launched a counter ad claiming its honey to
be Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) approved -- which means the
product is tested and licensed by food regulator and hence is much safer. It also claims
that safety and not the price tag should determine a consumers choice of brands.
Daburs ad plays on the fact that Patanjalis honey is not FSSAI approved and hence its
quality is questionable.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/business/patanjali-vs-dabur-the-ad-war-for-your-atten
tion/story-3DTKClKVnhzPNFJgbbgW9K.html
Case 3: Consumer vs Samsung

Samsung India Electronics has been directed by the Consumer DisputesRedressalForum to replace
a refrigerator to anAhmedabad-basedconsumer or refund the purchase price with interest.
Masood Khan had purchased a Samsung refrigerator on 6 June 2011 from Ishita Enterprise for Rs
94,000 under a one-year warranty. Within three months, the refrigerator revealed a cooling problem.
On a service engineer's suggestion, Khan replaced the gasket but then faced a problem with the
PCB. This time Samsung India suggested that he change the PCB assembly. Khan requested a
replacement but the company insisted on repairing the unit.

Later, Khan approached Consumer Education and Research Society (CERS), which issued a legal
notice but was dissatisfied at the response. CERS then filed a complaint with the Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad (rural) and requested to direct the companies to either replace the
defective refrigerator or refund the price with an 18 per cent interest, award Rs 25,000 as general
damages and and award Rs 10,000 towards costs.

The forum directed the company to either replace the refrigerator with the same make and model
within one month or refund the purchase price of Rs 94,000 with a nine per cent interest, pay Rs
5,000 as compensation for Khan's mental agony and harassment and Rs 2,000 towards cost.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Consumer-forum-orders-Samsung-India-t
o-replace-defective-fridge-or-refund-money/articleshow/21879584.cms
Case 4: Rajesh Rajan vs Pepsi

Rajesh Rajan purchased a bottle of Pepsi from a local store in Ahmedabad in August 2008, but
he found a gutka pouch inside the bottle. He dashed off a legal notice to the company accusing
it of deficiency in service that could cause health hazard for consumers. The multinational giant
even replied to the notice, but a year later.

Rajan approached a Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad (rural) and demanded Rs 5
lakh from the company towards compensation. During the hearing, the consumer forum sent the
sample to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation's laboratory for analysis. After hearing the
case, the consumer forum asked the company to return the amount of Rs 8 back to Rajan.
Besides, the forum also asked the company to pay Rs 4,000 towards compensation for causing
mental torture and towards litigation cost.

After hearing the case, the consumer court asked the company to deposit Rs 20,000 with the
state fund as penalty. Besides, the company has been asked to pay Rs 3,000 to the complainant
towards mental harassment. Interestingly, the court also asked the company to return Rs 15 to
the complainant with 8% interest.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Gutka-pouch-in-bottle-Pepsi-asked-to-comp
ensate-consumer/articleshow/23353767.cms