Category: Consumer Complaints

Bengaluru District Consumer Court ordered compensation to the passenger whose flight from Bangkok to Bengaluru became very disturbing when a hot food item reportedly spilled on him, leaving him shocked and uncomfortable mid-air.

In a recent case, a passenger named Sree Nayak filed a complaint against IndiGo Airlines, while traveling with his wife and daughter. About 15 minutes after the flight took off, a cabin crew member opened the overhead luggage bin above his seat. Suddenly, a packet of hot non-vegetarian curry fell down and spilled on him.

Nayak said the hot curry soaked his clothes and caused skin irritation. As a vegetarian, he also felt sick and uncomfortable due to the smell, which lasted for hours until he reached home. He said he could not change clothes or clean up properly during the flight and felt embarrassed as other passengers laughed. His clothes were badly stained, and he reportedly claimed that his bag and electronic items were damaged too.

Later, Nayak said the airline admitted the mistake over calls and emails and offered him a ₹5,000 travel voucher. He felt that this was not enough and approached the Bangalore District Consumer Court, asking for ₹5 lakh as compensation for mental stress and losses.

The airline argued that the incident was an accident and not intentional. It said the crew apologised, helped clean his clothes, and moved him to a better seat. The airline also said the compensation demand was too high.

After hearing both sides, the consumer court said the airline was responsible. It ruled that opening an overhead bin after take-off without ensuring safety was a service lapse. However, the court also noted that the passenger could not prove medical bills or major damage to his belongings.

On December 12, 2025, the court ordered the airline to pay ₹20,000 as compensation and ₹5,000 towards legal costs.

If you are facing issues with a defective product or service, use online platform like Voxya, trusted by 159k+ consumers across India. It helps consumers to get a replacement, refund, and compensation as soon as possible. If you are looking for a solution to your complaints then file a complaint now!

If you are looking for legal advice to resolve an Airline complaint

, then Talk To A Lawyer now!

In a significant decision, the Kollam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that supplying goods in less quantity than the weight mentioned in the advertisement is a “defect” and will be treated as misleading advertisement under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

In a very recent case, a law student filed a complaint against Flipkart through which he purchased Bean Bag Grains, which were advertised as 2 kg but on delivery, the product weighed only 1.540 kg.

After the complaint, the replacement received was 1.470 kg and the second replacement received was 1.680 kg. Despite repeated complaints and replacements, he did not receive the product of the promised weight. Therefore he approached the Kollam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and stated that he had purchased the product for ergonomic support after an accident, but due to its low weight, he faced discomfort, physical pain and mental stress.

Flipkart said it was only an intermediary and did not check the quality or quantity of the product. It said the responsibility for the weight shortage lies entirely with the seller and it provided replacement as per the platform policy. Lakshmi Enterprises, did not appear and proceedings were initiated against it ex parte.

The Commission found that the evidence presented by the complainant—such as bills and photographs showing underweight—remained unsubstantiated.

The Commission said that “defect” under Section 2(10) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 includes shortage of quantity, and supply of short weight product is clearly a defect. Additionally, it was also considered misleading advertising and unfair trade practice.

The Commission, while admitting the complaint, directed Lakshmi Enterprises to refund ₹764 to the complainant, pay ₹10,000 compensation. Flipkart and Laxmi Enterprises to jointly pay ₹10,000 litigation costs. To be paid within 45 days, failing which 9% interest will be applicable. This decision is being considered important in terms of protecting the rights of consumers and determining the responsibility of e-commerce platforms.

If you are facing issues with a defective product or service use online platform like Voxya, trusted by 159k+ consumers across India. It helps consumers to get a replacement, refund, and compensation as soon as possible. If you are looking for a solution to your complaints then file a complaint now!

If you are looking for legal advice to resolve an e-commerce complaint

, then Talk To A Lawyer now!

Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, has held Apple India liable for deficiency in service for failing to disclose the conditions attached to its “iPhone findable after power off” feature.

Very recently, the complainant, Shan Mohmmed, filed a complaint against Apple India, after purchasing an iPhone 13 for ₹70,500, with a special feature that the device was “findable after power off” but very soon phone was stolen from his residence, following which an FIR was registered. Expecting that the device could be traced using the stated feature, the complainant approached Apple’s customer support and followed the instructions available on its official platforms. However, the device could not be located.

It was alleged that despite taking all necessary steps, the complainant failed to trace the phone, resulting in mental harassment and financial loss. A legal notice was issued to the company, and upon receiving no satisfactory response, the complainant approached the New Delhi District Consumer Court seeking refund and compensation.

Apple India submitted that there was no contractual or legal obligation upon it to trace a stolen mobile phone. Relying on its warranty terms, the company argued that cases of theft were expressly excluded.

It was further contended that the “Find My” feature must be enabled by the user for the “findable after power off” functionality to operate, and that the complainant had not activated this feature prior to the incident. The company asserted that adequate assistance had been provided through customer support communications and emphasised that the responsibility to trace stolen devices lies with law enforcement agencies, not the manufacturer.

The Commission observed that the representation “iPhone findable after power off” was displayed without any asterisk, disclaimer, or indication of pre-conditions, thereby leading a reasonable consumer to believe that the feature would operate unconditionally. It noted that although the requirement of enabling the “Find My” feature could be accessed upon clicking the message, there was no clear guidance or prompt informing users of this condition.

The Commission held that such incomplete disclosure amounted to a misleading representation and deficiency in service, as consumers were not adequately informed about the limitations of the feature. Holding Apple India guilty of deficiency in service, the Commission directed it to pay ₹1,00,000 as compensation to the complainant.

If you are facing issues with a defective product or service use online platform like Voxya, trusted by 159k+ consumers across India. It helps consumers to get a replacement, refund, and compensation as soon as possible. If you are looking for a solution to your complaints then file a complaint now!

If you are looking for legal advice to resolve a Mobile/Laptop Complaints

, then Talk To A Lawyer now!

The Kerala District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, held Polycab India Private Limited liable for deficiency in service for refusing to replace a defective inverter during the subsistence of the warranty period.

The complainant, Saju P. Joseph, filed a complaint against Polycab India Private Limited as he purchased Polycab Solar String Inverter for Rs. 84,450 from Libra Industries, for his residence and workplace. The product was covered by a five-year manufacturer’s warranty.

The inverter became defective and stopped functioning. A technician inspected the unit and replaced it the following day. However, the complainant noticed that during the replacement, the technician had replaced his 2021 model inverter with an older model. Subsequently, the replacement inverter also malfunctioned. Although a technician inspected the device and confirmed that it was defective, the opposite parties allegedly refused to replace it and instead attributed the fault to issues with the KSEB.

Due to the malfunctioning inverter, the complainant was unable to utilise the electricity generated by his solar panels and was forced to rely on power supplied by KSEB, resulting in additional expenses, including an electricity bill of Rs. 7,515. Despite repeated email requests seeking replacement or refund, the opposite parties allegedly did not respond adequately. Aggrieved by the refusal of the opposite parties to honour the five-year warranty, the complainant approached the Kerala District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, seeking refund of the amount paid along with compensation.

Despite being duly served with notice, the opposite parties failed to appear before the Commission or file their written version within the prescribed time, and were therefore proceeded ex parte.

The Commission held that the opposite parties committed a gross deficiency in service by failing to replace the defective inverter in accordance with the warranty terms. It observed that the complainant had purchased the inverter based on the assurances of the opposite parties regarding its efficiency, durability, and its five-year manufacturer’s warranty but opposite parties failed to honour their obligations under the warranty by refusing to replace the defective inverter, even though it was still within the five-year warranty period.

Furthermore, the Commission, taking note of the financial hardship suffered by the complainant, observed that due to the malfunctioning inverter, he was unable to utilise the electricity generated from his solar panels and was compelled to rely on power supplied by KSEB, thereby incurring additional electricity expenses.

The Commission held that the opposite party were liable for deficiency in service for failing to extend the benefits of the warranty to the complainant, even though the defect had occurred during the subsistence of the warranty period.

Accordingly, the Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund Rs. 84,450 to the complainant. Pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation for the mental agony and hardships suffered. Pay Rs. 10,000 towards the cost of the proceedings.

If you are facing issues with a defective product or service use online platform like Voxya, trusted by 159k+ consumers across India. It helps consumers to get a replacement, refund, and compensation as soon as possible.

If you’re looking to hire a lawyer to file your case, click the given link –https://voxya.com/service/consumer-court-case

File a complaint now