Remedy available to the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, the high court observed. The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the remedy available to the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy. Other statutory remedy available to the consumer under other statutory laws would not bar the consumer to avail of that ‘additional’ remedy, it said. Justice Sanjay K Agrawal observed that district and state forums were wrong in rejecting the complaint on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act. Rajesh Kumar Agrawal, had complained before the district forum alleging that his service provider adopted unfair trade practice in providing telecom services though he had paid for data service and while using the data services, balance lying in call account was deducted unauthorisedly. The district forum had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom, v. M Krishnan and another to hold that the petitioner has a special remedy of arbitration provided under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act and that bars the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. Apparently, the high court does not discuss this apex court decision relied upon by the forum. Rather, the high court has relied on many other apex court judgments which suggest that the complaint would not be barred. Referring to provisions in the Consumer Protection Act and the dictum in Trans Mediterranean Airways v. Universal Exports, the court observed that the remedy available to the consumer under the Act of 1986 is an additional remedy and other remedies available to the consumer under the other statutory law would not bar the consumer to avail of the remedy available under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act as such the district forum committed an illegality in rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act.
When this year began, Mumbai was India’s noisiest city. In the eleven months that followed, its people campaigned, its court passed orders and its government acted to shake off this dubious distinction.
By Diwali, two locations — in Andheri and Powai — were named India’s quietest during the festival.
The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), which had named Mumbai the noisiest in February, was now praising the city’s anti-noise campaigners and calling the fight against noise pollution a ‘citizen movement’.
And, Diwali was not the only time the results were seen.
During Ganeshotsav, Mumbai’s noisiest festival, the highest recorded noise level dropped from 123.2 decibels (dB) in 2013 to 116.4 dB in 2016 and Dussehra levels fell from 103.4 db to 98.9db. Janmashtami and the Mahim fair were slightly noisier.
“More than any of the enforcement authorities, the credit has to go to the people of Mumbai for standing up for change and making the city a better place. We only were successful in convincing the people of the need to reduce noise,” said Satish Gavai, principal secretary, state environment department. Gavai added, “The celebration of festivals or even small joys of our daily life has nothing to do with making noise.”
The awareness campaigns aside, a series of court orders ensured the dramatic drop in noise by the end of the year.
Click Here for the full story
- A Haridwar court imposed fine of Rs 11 lakh on Yoga guru Ramdev’s company, Patanjali Ayurved Ltd.
- Fine was imposed on charges of misbranding and misrepresentation of its products.
In its order, the court of Lalit Narain Mishra, Haridwar’s additional district magistrate, found the company, which is currently eyeing at doubling its revenues from the current Rs 5,000 crore to almost Rs 10,000 crore by the next financial year, guilty of “releasing misleading advertisements+ by selling certain products with its labels although they were being manufactured by some other firm.”