In­dia’s EESL warns con­sumers about LED bulb frauds

Consumer Voice - - In The News -

In­dia’s En­ergy Ef­fi­ciency Ser­vices Limited (EESL) is­sued a warn­ing to con­sumers to be cau­tious about web­sites claim­ing to sell 9W LED bulbs for less than INR 1 (US $0.02). EESL has been the govern­ment agency re­spon­si­ble for ten­der­ing LED bulbs of pre­de­fined spec­i­fi­ca­tions from dif­fer­ent man­u­fac­tur­ers, and then sell­ing through au­tho­rised dis­tri­bu­tion chan­nels.

The govern­ment agency warned that it would not be held re­spon­si­ble for prod­uct qual­ity if con­sumers pur­chased bulbs from ven­dors other than their cer­ti­fied dis­tri­bu­tion cen­tres in states. Con­sumers can find the list of au­tho­rised dis­tri­bu­tion cen­tres in their state at www.ujala.gov.in. EESL has low­ered LED bulb prices by a quar­ter over a pe­riod of 18 months, and are sell­ing the bulbs for less than INR 75 com­pared to INR 300 ear­lier.

25 Patanjali ads vi­o­late ASCI code

The govern­ment has re­ceived 33 com­plaints re­gard­ing ad­ver­tise­ments of Baba Ramdev’s Patanjali Ayurved Limited in the last one year – of these, 25 are found to be vi­o­lat­ing the ad­ver­tis­ing code. Patanjali has emerged as a sig­nif­i­cant player in the food and FMCG sec­tor and is one of the largest ad­ver­tis­ers in the coun­try.

The de­part­ment of con­sumer af­fairs has es­tab­lished a por­tal called ‘griev­ance against mis­lead­ing ad­ver­tise­ments’ (GAMA) and ASCI has been as­signed the task of han­dling the com­plaints re­ceived through this por­tal. The cases where the ad­ver­tis­ers do not com­ply with ASCI’s di­rec­tions are re­ferred to the de­part­ment or the reg­u­la­tor Food Safety and Stan­dards Au­thor­ity of In­dia (FSSAI) for ap­pro­pri­ate ac­tion.

Delhi man sued McDon­ald's over lucky draw con­test in 2005, wins case af­ter 11 years

Delhi-based Kapil Mi­tra has won a long le­gal bat­tle against lead­ing fast food chain McDon­ald's, which had al­legedly been de­fi­cient in its ser­vices. McDon­ald's had not clearly out­lined the terms and con­di­tions of the con­test that it had launched in 2005 and Mi­tra had al­legedly ended up be­ing cheated by the restau­rant in the process. The Delhi State Con­sumer Dis­putes Re­dres­sal Com­mis­sion in its or­der has asked the food chain to pay the com­plainant a com­pen­sa­tion of Rs 2 lakh for de­fi­ciency and Rs 10 lakh to Con­sumer Wel­fare Fund of the state, main­tained by the Com­mis­sion, for not be­ing trans­par­ent while declar­ing the re­sults and dup­ing peo­ple at large by hold­ing that the con­test in a clan­des­tine man­ner.

Mi­tra had gone to McDon­ald's with his wife in 2005 and there he par­tic­i­pated in the ‘Ghar Bu­lao, Sab Lucky Ban Jao’ con­test. The cus­tomers were as­sured of prizes on their next pur­chase of min­i­mum Rs 20.

“I par­tic­i­pated in the con­test but re­ceived no in­ti­ma­tion from the restau­rant for over a month on the re­sults. The schemes were widely ad­ver­tised in var­i­ous news­pa­pers, but there were no men­tion of any terms and con­di­tions. Af­ter con­sult­ing with the man­ager I sent two texts cost­ing Rs 3 each, but still did not get the re­sult. The out­let too failed to give me a con­vinc­ing re­sponse,” Kapil Mi­tra told Mail To­day.

Mi­tra, who is a lawyer, de­cided to bat­tle it out legally with McDon­ald's, which is op­er­ated by Con­naught Plaza Restau­rants Pvt. Ltd, and filed a suit in the district fo­rum. The restau­rant told the court that the schemes were launched for cus­tomers opt­ing for home de­liv­ery and those vis­it­ing the restau­rant. It claimed that the terms and con­di­tions were put up on the no­tice board of each out­let.

How­ever, judge NP Kaushik, mem­ber, Delhi State Con­sumer Dis­putes Re­dres­sal Com­mis­sion, ob­served that the re­sults of the lucky draw were not made pub­lic and or­dered in favour of Mi­tra. The com­mis­sion ob­served that the restau­rant could not place any­thing on record to show that the terms and con­di­tions were dis­played on the no­tice board. More­over, it ob­served that the fi­nal re­sult of the scheme was not pub­lished in the same news­pa­per in which the scheme was ad­ver­tised, and held it guilty of ‘de­fi­ciency in ser­vice’ as per Sec­tion 2 (3) (3A) of Con­sumer Pro­tec­tion Act.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.