Public Right Action Network (PRAN) is a blog dedicated to empowering citizens with knowledge on consumer protection, public health, and law. Managed by Advocate Amarjeet Singh, the blog simplifies complex legal issues into actionable insights.
This blog is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal or medical advice. Readers should consult qualified professionals before making decisions based on the information here.
🛒 East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Slams Amazon & Appario Retail with ₹70,000 Fine for Wrong Laptop Delivery and Refund Denial
By: Advocate Amarjeet Singh Public Right Action Network (PRAN)
In a landmark decision, the East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Amazon Retail India Pvt. Ltd. and Appario Retail Pvt. Ltd. jointly liable for delivering an incorrect laptop and subsequently denying a refund. This case underscores the growing accountability of e-commerce platforms in India and highlights the importance of consumer rights.
📦 Case Background
On December 26, 2023, Harjas Singh Sondhi ordered an HP Pavilion laptop for ₹61,990 through Amazon's online platform. However, upon delivery, he received an outdated IBM ThinkPad instead. Despite promptly returning the incorrect product and providing photographic evidence, his refund request was denied. Amazon cited a vague "Use Policy" and alleged discrepancies in the returned product.
⚖️ Court's Ruling
The Commission found Amazon and Appario Retail's defenses evasive and lacking in clarity. It ruled both companies jointly responsible for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The court ordered them to:
Refund the full purchase amount of ₹61,990 with 9% annual interest from the date of payment.
Pay ₹10,000 for mental agony and ₹7,500 towards litigation costs.
The refund must be processed within 30 days; otherwise, the interest rate will increase to 11%.
📝 Legal Implications
This ruling highlights the growing scrutiny of e-commerce platforms in India. It emphasizes the need for transparent refund policies and accountability. The Commission also recommended that deliveries be photographed or videographed to prevent disputes regarding the delivered product.
✅ Consumer Takeaways
Consumers should:
Capture photos of the parcel and the product upon delivery.
Preserve all order-related communications and invoices.
Alert the platform immediately upon noticing any discrepancy or damage.
Request all policy documents in writing if a claim is denied.
Such measures can significantly ease the process of resolving disputes with online retailers.
🛡️ Govt Launches Tobacco-Free Youth Campaign 3.0 — A Critical Step to Protect India’s Children
By Public Right Action Network (PRAN)
Union Minister of State for Health and Family Welfare, Anupriya Patel, recently launched the Tobacco-Free Youth Campaign 3.0, a 60-day nationwide initiative aimed at protecting young minds from the dangers of tobacco and nicotine.
The campaign seeks to:
Empower youth to resist peer pressure and make informed choices
Create youth ambassadors for a tobacco-free and addiction-free lifestyle
Promote tobacco-free schools and communities
Strengthen enforcement of COTPA and the Prohibition of E-Cigarettes Act
Conduct digital awareness campaigns and school-based education programs
Offer cessation support through counseling and helplines
Tobacco consumption is a major public health challenge in India, claiming over 13 lakh lives annually.
According to the Global Youth Tobacco Survey, 8.4% of students aged 13–15 years currently use tobacco products, with an average initiation age of just 10 years.
Tobacco remains one of the leading causes of preventable deaths in India, claiming over 1 million lives annually. Among youth, the situation is alarming: 14.6% of students aged 13–15 use tobacco, and nearly 37% of children start smoking before the age of 10. Each day, 5,500 children begin tobacco use, and one-third of them may ultimately die from tobacco-related diseases.
🎯 Key Focus of the Campaign
Tobacco-Free Schools: Prohibit sale and use within 100 yards of educational institutions.
Community Action: Expand Tobacco-Free Villages and engage youth locally.
Digital Outreach: Awareness campaigns through social media, youth ambassadors, and school initiatives.
Law Enforcement: Strengthen compliance with COTPA and the Prohibition of E-Cigarettes Act.
Cessation Support: Promote counseling and helplines for youth already using tobacco.
📊 Highlight: Big Tobacco, Tiny Targets Study
PRAN draws attention to the 2020 study “Big Tobacco, Tiny Targets”, a joint initiative by Consumer VOICE and Voluntary Health Association of India (VHAI). The study was authored by Amarjeet Singh and others providing robust evidence on tobacco industry practices targeting youth.
Key Findings:
1,011 schools across 25 cities in 10 states were surveyed.
885 points of sale (POS) were located within 100 yards of schools, violating Section 6(b) of COTPA.
77% of POS sold tobacco near schools; 37% were street vendors, the most common type of retailer
Cigarettes were sold at 95% of POS, bidis at 68%, smokeless tobacco at 59%, flavored products at 23%, and heated tobacco at 4%.
Single-stick sales were rampant:87% of POS sold individual cigarettes or bidis.
Marketing targeting children:
72% of POS displayed cigarettes near candies or sweets.
76% of POS displayed products at children’s eye level.
62% of POS hid graphic health warnings.
Promotions and advertisements:
Posters: 42% of POS
Billboards: 12% of POS
Free distribution: 12% of POS
Special or limited-edition packs: 12% of POS
This study clearly demonstrates the urgent need to strengthen COTPA, enforce vendor licensing, and curb industry tactics that lure youth to tobacco use.
🌱 Recommendations for Stronger Tobacco Control
Ban all POS advertising and displays, removing exceptions in COTPA section 5(2).
Prohibit single-stick cigarette and bidi sales to reduce youth experimentation.
Raise the legal age for tobacco consumption from 18 to 21 years.
Implement vendor licensing:
Only allow sales outside school proximity.
Prohibit selling candies, chips, and other child-attractive items alongside tobacco.
Hold tobacco companies accountable for marketing tactics targeting minors.
Increase fines and penalties to ensure effective deterrence.
💬 PRAN’s Call to Action
The Tobacco-Free Youth Campaign 3.0 is a crucial step, but real impact requires legal reform, strict enforcement, and community participation. PRAN urges:
“Stop Big Tobacco from targeting our children. Strengthen COTPA, enforce the law, and make India a tobacco-free home for every child.”
A Step-by-Step Legal Guide by Amarjeet Singh, Advocate- Public
Right Action Network (PRAN)
📰 Introduction
A hit-and-run accident is one of the
most traumatic events on our roads — a moment of negligence that can destroy a
life and leave families fighting for justice. In many such cases, the offending
vehicle and driver remain untraced, and victims are left without recourse to
normal insurance or legal compensation channels.
To ensure that such victims are not
denied relief, the Government of India launched the Compensation to
Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022, under Section 161
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The scheme is administered by the General Insurance Council (GIC) and
guarantees fixed compensation to victims or their families in cases where the
offending vehicle cannot be identified.
At Public Right Action Network
(PRAN), we work to make such legal entitlements accessible to citizens —
ensuring that law and justice meet people where they are.
⚖️
Legal Framework
Section 161, Motor Vehicles Act (1988): Defines hit-and-run accidents and empowers the
government to provide compensation.
GSR 163(E), 25 February 2022: Government notification introducing the updated Compensation
Scheme 2022.
Implementing Agency:General Insurance Council (GIC) — the nodal body representing all
general insurers.
💰 Compensation Entitlement
Case Type
Compensation
Death
₹ 2,00,000
Grievous Hurt
₹ 50,000
These amounts are payable from the Motor
Vehicles Accident Fund, maintained by the Central Government.
👥 Who Can Apply
For death:
Legal heirs or dependents (spouse, children, parents).
For grievous injury:
The injured person.
The accident must involve an unidentified and
untraced vehicle, verified through a police investigation and FIR.
Claims Settlement Commissioner (CSC) – District Magistrate / Deputy Commissioner
Reviews CEO’s report, issues sanction order (Form III).
Central
General Insurance Council (GIC)
Processes approved claims and makes direct e-payment to
claimant.
📄 Documents Required
Duly filled Form I (Application) and Form IV
(Undertaking)
Copy of Bank Passbook (showing IFSC and name)
Identity and address proof of victim and claimant
FIR copy
registered with police
Post-mortem report
(for death cases)
Death certificate
or injury certificate
Hospital / treatment bills, if any
🪶 Step-by-Step Process
Step
1 – Register an FIR
Immediately report the incident at the
nearest police station in Delhi, clearly marking it as a hit-and-run
case. Obtain a copy of the FIR.
Step
2 – Collect Required Documents
Gather all relevant medical and
legal documents — hospital reports, post-mortem, death or injury certificates,
and identity proofs.
Step
3 – Complete the Application
Obtain Form I from your
area’s SDM / Tehsildar or from the General Insurance Council (GIC)
website. Fill it carefully with accurate details, including your bank
information.
Step
4 – Submit to Claims Enquiry Officer
Submit the completed Form I
and Form IV, along with supporting documents, to the office of the SDM
/ Tehsildar (acting as the Claims Enquiry Officer) where the accident
occurred.
Step
5 – Verification & Forwarding
The officer verifies all details and
forwards a detailed report (Form II) to the District Magistrate /
Deputy Commissioner (CSC) within 30 days.
Step
6 – Decision by Claims Settlement Commissioner
Within 15 days of receiving the
report, the CSC reviews and issues a sanction order (Form III). If
further verification is required, it must be completed within an additional 15
days.
Step
7 – Payment by General Insurance Council
Once approved, the CSC forwards the
sanction order to:
General Insurance Council (GIC)
5th Floor, National Insurance Building, 14 Jamshedji Tata Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai – 400 020 📧HitandRunSchemeClaims@gicouncil.in☎️ 7700959078 🌐gicouncil.in
The GIC releases e-payment
directly to the claimant’s bank account within 15 days (extendable by 30
days with reasons recorded).
📍 Where to Apply in Delhi
Claims Enquiry Officer: The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) / Tehsildar
of the subdivision where the accident occurred (e.g., SDM Saket, SDM
Rohini, SDM South Delhi).
Claims Settlement Commissioner: The District Magistrate / Deputy Commissioner
of the relevant district
⚠️
Important Notes
Compensation under the Golden Hour Scheme (Section
162), if already received, will be deducted from the
hit-and-run amount.
If the offending vehicle is later traced, the claimant
must refund the hit-and-run compensation and file a regular MACT
claim.
Only cases of grievous hurt or death are
eligible under this scheme.
⏳ Time Limit for Filing a Hit-and-Run Compensation Claim
Filing Period: Victims or their legal heirs must submit their claim within 6 months from the date of the accident.
Claim Submission: The claim should be submitted in FORM I to the Claims Enquiry Officer (typically the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Collector) at the location where the accident occurred.
Investigation and Processing: The Claims Enquiry Officer is required to investigate and submit a report (FORM II) to the Claims Settlement Officer (usually the District Collector) within 1 month. The Claims Settlement Officer must then pass an order (FORM III) within 15 days.
Payment: Upon approval, the General Insurance Council processes the compensation, which is typically disbursed via e-payment to the claimant's bank account within 15 days from the date of the order.
📘 Form I – Application for Compensation
(Under Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Hit-and-Run Motor Accident Scheme, 2022)
To:
The Claims Enquiry Officer,
(Designation: SDM/Tehsildar)
☑ Copy of FIR
☑ Post-mortem / Injury Report
☑ Death Certificate / Medical Report
☑ ID & Address Proof (Victim & Claimant)
☑ Bank Passbook Copy
☑ Undertaking (Form IV)
☑ Hospital Bill / Cashless Treatment Bill (if any)
6. Declaration
I hereby declare that the above information is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
I further declare that I have not received any other compensation for the same accident and will refund the amount if the offending vehicle is identified or if compensation is received from any other source.
Signature / Thumb Impression of Claimant
Date: ____________
Place: ____________
Cashless Treatment of Road Accident Victims Scheme, 2025 (Scheme) has been notified on a pan India basis vide S.O. 2015(E) dated the 5th May, 2025 and the Guidelines of the Scheme have been notified vide S.O. 2489(E) dated the 4th June, 2025. Under this Scheme any person who is a victim of road accident caused by the use of a motor vehicle shall be entitled to treatment cover upto Rs. 1.5 lakh per victim, subject to a maximum cap of 7 days from date of accident at any designated hospital across the country.
This article is for public
information and awareness only and does not constitute legal advice.
Procedures may vary slightly by district. Always confirm details with your
local authorities or a qualified legal expert.
💼 About Public Right Action Network (PRAN)
Public Right Action Network (PRAN) is a non-political, not-for-profit network of
public-rights advocates, practitioners, and activists dedicated to making
societies more equitable, just, and sustainable.
At PRAN, we bridge the gap between law,
policy, and people — offering advocacy support, legal literacy, and
citizen-empowerment initiatives.
Our work spans:
I. Introduction: Road Safety as a Constitutional Imperative
The Supreme Court’s judgment in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors. (2025 INSC 1189), delivered on 7 October 2025, marks a watershed in India’s evolving road safety jurisprudence. The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan issued sweeping, mandatory directions to governments and statutory bodies, translating road safety norms into enforceable constitutional duties.
What began as a public interest petition in 2012 by Dr. S. Rajaseekaran, a noted orthopaedic surgeon, has over the years transformed into a judicially guided national road safety program. The case now stands as India’s longest-running and most comprehensive judicial initiative addressing systemic transport and infrastructure risks.
The 2025 order expands the judicial approach from enforcement-centric directions (helmets, licensing, enforcement) to infrastructure-based safety, recognizing that design, governance, and accountability are equally crucial in preventing fatalities.
II. Background and Judicial Trajectory
Since its inception, this litigation has shaped the governance of road safety in India:
2014: The Supreme Court constituted the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety (SCCoRS) under Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan, setting a precedent for quasi-regulatory oversight.
2017 Orders: Emphasized mandatory enforcement of helmet and seat belt laws, identification of black spots, and establishment of State Road Safety Councils and Lead Agencies.
2019–2023 Orders: Monitored implementation of Section 215D of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, requiring States to form Road Safety Boards.
2025 Judgment: For the first time, the Court issued specific, measurable, and time-bound directions covering pedestrian safety, helmet use, lane discipline, and the regulation of vehicle lighting systems.
This continuity underscores the Supreme Court’s role not merely as an adjudicator but as a constitutional enforcer of governance standards.
III. Facts and Statistical Context
The judgment cites alarming data from the “Road Accidents in India 2023” report by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH):
1,72,890 deaths in 2023, of which 35,221 (20.4%) were pedestrians.
Pedestrian fatalities rose 7.3% from 2022, with over 11,000 deaths on national highways alone.
54,000 two-wheeler deaths were due to non-wearing of helmets.
The Court observed that these figures amount to a “national emergency”, comparable to casualties from major disasters, yet neglected by State administrations.
IV. Key Legal Questions and Judicial Findings
The 2025 order addresses five principal issues:
Safety of pedestrians and infrastructure (footpaths and crossings).
Wearing of helmets and enforcement of Sections 128–129 of the MV Act.
Wrong-lane driving and unsafe overtaking.
Use of dazzling LED headlights, unauthorized strobe lights, and hooters.
Non-framing of State rules under Sections 138(1A) and 210-D of the MV Act.
The Court held that failure to ensure safe pedestrian facilities constitutes a dereliction of statutory and constitutional duties. It linked the issue directly to the right to life under Article 21, observing that “safe mobility is an essential component of a dignified existence.”
V. Operative Directions (Paras 35.1–35.17): Scope and Implications
The judgment provides a granular, enforceable roadmap. The directions are summarized below with corresponding legal implications:
1. Pedestrian Safety Audits (Paras 35.1–35.2)
All road-owning agencies in 50 million-plus cities and NHAI must audit existing footpaths and pedestrian crossings, beginning with high-footfall areas and vulnerable zones.
These audits must identify design, width, height, and surface deficiencies and fix timelines for rectification.
Legal implication: This creates a statutory obligation under Sections 198A and 210-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, making road-owning authorities liable for design-based deaths or injuries.
2. Control of Encroachments and Continuous Monitoring (Para 35.3)
Mandates automated, camera-based monitoring systems, GIS mapping, and periodic clearance drives to maintain pedestrian zones.
Legal basis: Reinforces enforcement under Sections 201 and 210B of the MV Act. It operationalizes prior rulings in Olga Tellis, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, and M.C. Mehta (2019).
3. Safety of Subways and Foot Overbridges (Para 35.4)
Requires audits of security features, CCTV coverage, panic buttons, and lighting, with special focus on women’s safety.
Policy shift: Recognizes “fear-based non-use” of infrastructure as a form of functional exclusion, linking road design to gender-sensitive mobility.
4. Standards for Crossings and Signage (Para 35.5)
Directs illumination of crossings, placement of barriers, and application of IRC:35-2015 and IRC:67-2012 standards.
Implication: These standards, incorporated by reference into Rule 166 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules (2020), acquire binding force through judicial endorsement.
5. Creation of New Crossings (Para 35.6)
States and NHAI must conduct surveys within one year to plan new crossings, starting with Delhi High Court–Zoo stretch on Mathura Road, to be completed in seven months.
Significance: This is the first time the Court has issued location-specific infrastructure directions, transforming judicial recommendations into direct implementation mandates.
6. Accountability and Personal Liability (Para 35.10)
Invokes Section 198A to fix personal liability of officials and contractors for pedestrian deaths caused by faulty road design.
Constitutional relevance: Converts negligence in infrastructure maintenance into actionable constitutional negligence under Article 21.
7. Grievance Redress Mechanism (Para 35.11)
Orders States, NHAI, and Municipalities to create online portals for reporting damaged footpaths, encroachments, or missing crossings, with time-bound redress.
Legal innovation: Introduces a citizen-driven compliance tool akin to “Right to Safe Infrastructure,” expanding participatory governance under Articles 243W and 243X.
8. Strengthening District Road Safety Committees (Para 35.12)
Makes it mandatory for DRSCs to review pedestrian safety monthly.
Federal implication: Reinforces vertical accountability from district to national level, ensuring uniform application of road safety law.
9. Helmet Enforcement (Para 35.13)
Directs all States and UTs to enforce Sections 128–129 and 194D through electronic monitoring and submit compliance data (challans, suspensions, fines) to the Court.
Interpretation: Recognizes enforcement failure as a constitutional dereliction affecting the right to life.
10. Wrong-Lane Driving and Lane Discipline (Para 35.14)
Mandates automated cameras, rumble strips, and digital dashboards for real-time lane violation monitoring.
Integration: Embeds traffic discipline into preventive governance, connecting “3Es” (Engineering, Enforcement, Education) as systemic tools for compliance.
11. Regulation of LED Lights and Hooters (Para 35.15)
MoRTH and States must prescribe maximum permissible luminance and beam angles, enforce bans on unauthorized red-blue strobes and sirens, and conduct nationwide awareness drives.
Enforceability: Expands the meaning of “road safety” beyond infrastructure to include sensory and behavioral risks, broadening the statutory scope of Section 110(1) of the MV Act.
12. Rulemaking by States (Paras 35.16–35.17)
All States and UTs must notify rules within six months under:
Section 138(1A): Regulating pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle access;
Section 210-D: Prescribing design and maintenance standards for non-National Highways.
Legal consequence: Failure to notify these rules would constitute non-compliance with statutory duties and could invite contempt under Article 144.
VI. Constitutional and Jurisprudential Analysis
A. Road Safety as a Fundamental Right
By linking road safety to Article 21, the Court constitutionalizes what was earlier a policy concern. It extends the ratio of M.C. Mehta (vehicular pollution case) and Olga Tellis to urban mobility, thus framing the right to safe roads as part of the right to life, dignity, and environment.
B. Accountability through Statutory Enforcement
Invoking Section 198A (penal liability for road design failure) represents a jurisprudential breakthrough — holding public officials and contractors directly accountable for infrastructure-related deaths.
C. Cooperative Federalism in Practice
The Court harmonizes the Concurrent List (Entry 35)—covering road safety—by directing coordinated rulemaking between MoRTH and States. It operationalizes cooperative federalism through judicial supervision.
D. Judicial Policy-Making
This judgment epitomizes what scholars call “transformative constitutionalism” — using judicial authority to advance social and administrative reform in the absence of executive initiative.
VII. Compliance and Monitoring
The Court ordered the case to be listed after seven months for a compliance review, thereby retaining continuing mandamus jurisdiction. This ensures sustained oversight similar to environmental PILs under T.N. Godavarman or Vineet Narain principles.
VIII. Conclusion: From Enforcement to Design-Based Justice
The 2025 Rajaseekaran judgment redefines the contours of public law in India. It shifts the discourse on road safety from individual negligence to institutional accountability and from enforcement to design-based prevention.
By embedding pedestrian safety within constitutional jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has transformed road safety from a bureaucratic responsibility into a legal right — enforceable, measurable, and judicially protected.
The success of this judgment will now depend on whether governments treat it not as an order to comply with, but as a mandate to reform.
Supreme Court Directs States and Union Territories to Frame Rules for Pedestrian Safety under the Motor Vehicles Act
Introduction:
On October 7, 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued a landmark directive emphasizing the importance of pedestrian safety. In the case of S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 295/2012, the Court directed all States and Union Territories to formulate rules under the Motor Vehicles Act to ensure the safety of pedestrians and the proper design and maintenance of footpaths. Live Law
Key Directives:
Formulation of Rules under Section 138(1A):
The Court directed all States and Union Territories to formulate rules under Section 138(1A) of the Motor Vehicles Act within six months.
These rules are to regulate the activities and access of non-mechanically propelled vehicles and pedestrians to public places and national highways.
Formulation of Rules under Section 210D:
The Court also directed the formulation of rules under Section 210D for the design, construction, and maintenance standards for roads other than national highways.
These rules aim to ensure that roads are constructed and maintained in a manner that prioritizes pedestrian safety.
Implementation of Pedestrian Safety Guidelines:
The Court referred to the Indian Roads Congress's "Guidelines for Pedestrian Safety" (Second Revision, June 2022) and emphasized the importance of implementing these guidelines.
Proper and well-maintained footpaths are judicially recognized as essential for pedestrian safety, as highlighted in previous judgments such as Olga Tellis.
Addressing Specific Issues:
The Court acknowledged specific issues, such as the problems arising near the Delhi High Court, and issued directions to address these concerns.
The directives include measures related to pavement and pedestrian crossings to enhance safety.
Importance of the Directive:
This directive underscores the Court's recognition of pedestrian safety as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. By mandating the formulation of rules and the implementation of safety guidelines, the Court aims to create a safer and more accessible environment for pedestrians across the country.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's directive is a significant step towards ensuring the safety and well-being of pedestrians in India. It calls for a collaborative effort between the central and state governments to implement comprehensive measures that prioritize pedestrian safety in urban planning and road design.
.jpg)
