Students As Consumers: Rights, Risks & Real Fixes — A Practical Guide

Student Consumers: Rights, Risks & Real Fixes — A Practical Guide by PRAN

By Amarjeet Singh | Founder, Public Right Action Network (PRAN)
Published: 01/11/2025

 Student life = freedom + transactions. From PG deposits to canteen food, cab apps to dark-pattern traps — this practical PRAN guide explains common student consumer problems, step-by-step fixes, and how college clubs can turn awareness into action. Don’t just scroll — take control.

Introduction — why students must know consumer rights

College opens up freedom, choices, and — yes — a steady stream of purchases. For many students, this is the first time you manage rent, food, subscriptions, coaching fees and online shopping on your own. That makes you an everyday consumer.

But being a consumer also means being a target: misleading ads, withheld deposits, fake products, unsafe food — these are common. The good news? Most problems are fixable. With a couple of smart habits and a little collective action, students can protect themselves and create a fairer campus marketplace.

Tagline: Don’t just scroll — take control.

Top problems students face (short, real examples)

• Canteen & food safety: stale items, reused oil, no price lists, no FSSAI display.

• PG / hostel trouble: withheld security deposits, verbal-only agreements, hidden charges.

• Coaching & courses: “100% guaranteed” ads, unclear refund policies.

• Online shopping: wrong or fake items, delayed/no refunds, fake reviews.

• Cab/delivery apps: surge pricing, unfair cancellations, slow refunds.

• Telecom & billing: unexpected deductions, poor service despite payment.

• Dark patterns & data: pre-ticked boxes, hidden subscriptions, excessive app permissions.

• Tobacco sales near college: illegal within 100 yards of educational institutes (COTPA breach).

Your legal toolkit — quick primer

• Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — six basic rights (safety, information, choice, heard, redress, education).

• FSSAI — food safety licensing and complaints for unhygienic or unsafe food.

• COTPA, 2003 — prohibits sale of tobacco within 100 yards of schools/colleges.

• CCPA (Central Consumer Protection Authority) — handles misleading ads and systemic issues; can penalize violators.

• Digital Personal Data Protection / DPDP (as applicable) — protects how businesses use your data.

• District Collector & Consumer Commissions — local authorities for escalation and adjudication.

A simple 5-step routine every student should use

1. Document everything. Photos, screenshots, bills, messages — collect proof immediately.

2. Ask the seller/provider first (in writing). Be clear: what happened and what remedy you want (refund, replacement, deposit return). Set a 7-day deadline.

3. Use helplines & portals. Call 1915 (National Consumer Helpline) or use consumerhelpline.gov.in. File formal complaints on edaakhil.nic.in. Food issues → FSSAI app/portal.

4. Public pressure (carefully). A factual social post or a tagged complaint on the brand’s Instagram/Twitter often speeds up resolution — stick to facts to avoid defamation.

5. File formally if needed. e-Daakhil or the District Consumer Commission can provide redress; many small claims don’t need lawyers.

Tagline: Smart consumers don’t complain — they act.

Quick action plans for common campus problems

Canteen & food safety

• Take a photo of the food and kitchen (if possible), keep the bill, and file a report on FSSAI’s portal.

• Ask the college administration to require FSSAI license display and periodical hygiene checks.

PG / Hostel issues

• Never hand over a large deposit without a written agreement. Use a simple checklist (see handout below).

• If deposit is withheld, demand itemised deductions in writing. If unresolved, file a consumer complaint.

Coaching & misleading ads

• Save screenshots of the ad and any claims. If the institute’s promises are untrue, lodge a complaint with CCPA and the District Collector.

Online shopping & apps

• Screenshot product page and seller details. Use app/website chat to request returns. Escalate to the platform’s grievance cell and NCH if needed.

Dark patterns & data privacy

• Screen-record or screenshot UX flows that trick you into purchases. Report deceptive UX to consumerhelpline.gov.in and CCPA if systemic.

Student Consumer Quick Pack

1. Take photos & screenshots (product page, order ID, seller name).

2. Send a written complaint to the seller: include order/room ID, demand, deadline (7 days).

3. Use helpline: 1915 / consumerhelpline.gov.in. File at edaakhil.nic.in if unresolved.

4. Escalate: For systemic issues, email ccpa@nic.in and notify the District Collector.

5. PG checklist before move-in: written agreement, deposit amount & return terms, electricity billing method, food arrangement & hygiene, safety checks (locks, lights, fire exits).

6. Template: (use the copy-paste complaint at the end of this article).

7. Share with your club: collate 5+ similar complaints and send a joint representation to college admin/District Collector.

Complaint template (copy-paste)

To: [seller/support email]  
Date: [dd/mm/yyyy]  
Subject: Complaint — [Order/Service/Room] #[reference]

Hello,  
I purchased/availed [product/service] on [date] via [platform/name]. The issue: [brief description]. Evidence attached: [invoice, screenshots].  
Requested remedy: [refund/replacement/return of deposit] within 7 days.  
If unresolved, I will escalate to the National Consumer Helpline (1915), e-Daakhil and the District Consumer Office.  

Regards,  
[Your name, course, college, contact]

How student clubs can turn awareness into change

Student groups are local powerhouses. Here are small campaigns that work:

• Canteen Hygiene Audit: a quick checklist + photographic evidence + a short report submitted to the Principal.

• PG Watch: map honest vs problematic PGs, publish anonymised feedback.

• Consumer Clinics: monthly sessions to help file e-Daakhil complaints.

• Short videos & reels: how to spot dark patterns, how to file a complaint (60–90 sec clips).

• Joint letters to District Collector and CCPA: collective complaints get faster traction.

PRAN collaboration idea: PRAN can support clubs with legal explainers, complaint templates, and help draft joint representations. PRAN can co-publish a short student zine on campus consumer rights.

Digital safety — 5 things to check before clicking “Agree”

1. What permissions does the app ask for? (Camera, mic, contacts — do they match the app’s purpose?)

2. Are subscriptions pre-ticked? Uncheck them.

3. Does the checkout show breakup of taxes and shipping? If not, question it.

4. Are influencer posts labelled #Ad or #Sponsored? If not, treat the claim with suspicion.

5. Does the app or seller provide a clear grievance address? Save it.

Tagline: Click smart, not hard.

When to seek help from authorities

• FSSAI — repeated food hazards or food poisoning.

• CCPA — repeated misleading ads or platform-wide dark patterns. Email ccpa@nic.in (attach evidence).

• District Collector — for local, systemic problems (tobacco vendors near campus, persistent canteen violations).

• Consumer Commission (e-Daakhil) — for formal claims and compensation.

Final word — small acts, big impact

Students are not only consumers — you’re trendsetters. The habits you build (asking for receipts, refusing single-use plastics, filing an honest complaint) ripple out to shape market behavior. Start small: document once, help a friend once, file a joint complaint once. The market will listen.

If your college or student club wants a short workshop, a complaint-clinic template, or help drafting a joint submission, PRAN is happy to collaborate. Visit our blog: publicrightaction.blogspot.com and drop a note in the comments or use the blog’s contact form.

Final tagline: Your silence is a seller’s profit — speak up.

---

Author

Amarjeet Singh— Legal & Policy Expert; Founder, Public Right Action Network (PRAN). Amarjeet works on consumer justice, public health and governance accountability. PRAN publishes easy guides, case explainers and practical toolkits to help citizens use the law for everyday justice. Follow PRAN at publicrightaction.blogspot.com.

#ConsumerRights #StudentConsumers #KnowYourRights #PRAN #AwakenKNC  #ConsumerAwareness #DontJustScrollTakeControl

🟢 Public Right Action Network (PRAN)

PRAN is a citizen-driven blog exploring how law and policy shape people’s lives and rights — promoting transparency, accountability, and justice for all.

📩 Follow & Subscribe: 👉 https://follow.it/public-right-action-network-pran 🌍 Available in multiple languages — read, share & stay informed.

📢 Follow us on social media:

🐦 X: @ActionPran

💼 LinkedIn: bit.ly/PRAN-LinkedIn

📘 Facebook: facebook.com/profile.php?id=100067577379673

🔁 Please share in your network & help spread awareness! 🙏

National Road Safety Board Rules, 2025 — Progress or Missed Opportunity?

 National Road Safety Board Rules, 2025 — Progress or Missed Opportunity?

The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) has notified the National Road Safety Board (NRSB) Rules, 2025, under Section 215D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The notification renews attention to India’s long-standing goal of establishing a permanent institutional framework for road safety.

But a key question remains: Do these Rules fulfil the Act’s vision — or merely expand an administrative structure without real autonomy or impact?

 

The Act’s Vision — An Independent Expert Body

Section 215D of the Motor Vehicles Act, inserted through the 2019 amendment, provides for a National Road Safety Board to advise both Central and State Governments on road safety, traffic management, and vehicle standards.

The intent was clear — to create a technical, expert-led, and independent advisory institution, capable of guiding government policy through scientific evidence and professional insight rather than bureaucratic routine.

 

Rules — From 2021 to 2025: What’s Changed

The first NRSB Rules were notified on 3 September 2021 (GSR 615(E) and SO 3627(E)) to give effect to Section 215D. They created a minimal administrative structure, enough to legally constitute the Board but too weak to make it operationally effective.

The 2025 Rules, newly notified, attempt to build on that foundation — adding more procedural and functional detail. Yet, the essential question is: Do they strengthen or soften the Board’s independence?

Aspect	2021 Rules (GSR 615E)	2025 Rules (New Notification)	Implications
Composition	Chairperson + up to 7 members, mostly government officials.	Expanded categories — administration, road engineering, trauma care, enforcement, public health, etc.	Broader representation, but still dominated by officials.
Appointment Process	Nominated by Central Government.	May introduce a search-cum-selection process.	Potentially improves transparency.
Functions	Advisory role on safety standards, training, and research.	Expanded to include accident data analysis, state coordination, and awareness campaigns.	Strengthens scope and operational clarity.
Secretariat	Under MoRTH.	Still under MoRTH.	Functional dependence continues.
Accountability	Annual report to MoRTH.	Broader reporting and evaluation provisions.	Improved transparency but limited enforcement power.

🟢 Verdict:
The 2025 Rules are a modest improvement — they add detail, widen the scope, and formalise accountability.
🔴 But the Board still lacks institutional autonomy and independent composition, the core principles Parliament envisioned.

 

🧠 Rules vs. Act — Legal Clarity

It’s important to clarify a frequent misconception:

Rules need not mirror the Act; they are meant to implement it.

Under delegated legislation, Rules provide the mechanism to operationalise the Act. Courts intervene only when Rules contradict or defeat the Act’s purpose.

As the Supreme Court held in St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director (2003) 3 SCC 321, subordinate legislation may “fill in the details but cannot override or alter the essential features” of the statute.

Hence, the issue with the 2025 Rules is not that they differ from the Act — but that they may dilute the Act’s spirit by making the Board administratively dependent on the same Ministry it must advise.

 

⚠️ Policy Concern — Bureaucratic Control, Limited Expertise

The 2025 framework still places the Board under MoRTH, both financially and administratively.
While expert categories have increased, the balance of representation remains skewed.

Without genuine independence, the Board risks becoming a procedural body rather than a policy think tank. Its recommendations could remain symbolic, not strategic.

🧭 What Road Safety Groups Can Do

The Rules are only the beginning — their effectiveness depends on how civil society, professionals, and citizen groups engage with them.

1. Advocate for Expert Inclusion

Demand at least 50% representation of professionals from transport engineering, trauma care, public health, behavioural science, and consumer safety.

2. Seek Transparency

Use RTI and policy petitions to obtain Board minutes, reports, and decisions. Push for public disclosure of recommendations and action taken.

3. Collaborate, Don’t Confront

Build alliances with policymakers and research institutions to provide technical input on crash data analysis, post-crash response, and driver training standards.

4. Monitor and Report

Publish “People’s Reports on Road Safety Governance”, evaluating the Board’s performance against the National Road Safety Policy (2010) and UN’s Decade of Action (2021–2030).

 

🚘 The Way Forward

The National Road Safety Board Rules, 2025 mark progress but not transformation.
They correct some structural gaps from 2021 but stop short of creating a truly independent and expert-driven institution as envisaged by Section 215D.

India loses over 1.5 lakh lives annually in road crashes. A board that merely advises without autonomy cannot deliver systemic change.
To honour Parliament’s vision, the NRSB must evolve from a bureaucratic committee into a national authority on road safety governance — transparent, accountable, and science-led.

---

📢 Follow the Public Right Action Network (PRAN)

🟢 If you care about consumer rights, justice, and public accountability — stay connected.
📩 Subscribe for updates on law, policy, and people’s rights: https://publicrightaction.blogspot.com
🔗 Follow us for more analyses on governance, accountability, and public safety reforms.

 

Supreme Court Rules: Cause of Fire Immaterial if Insured Is Innocent — Clarification on Fire Insurance Claims

 

🔥 Fire Cause Doesn’t Matter If You Didn’t Instigate It: Supreme Court Clarifies Fire Insurance Law

Case: National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Orion Conmerx Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1047
Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta & Manmohan
Date of Judgment: October 30, 2025
Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine SC ___

🧾 Background

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed a crucial principle of insurance law — the cause of a fire is immaterial as long as the insured did not instigate or commit fraud.

The case arose when National Insurance Company Ltd. rejected a fire insurance claim of Orion Conmerx Pvt. Ltd., arguing that the blaze at its premises was “not accidental.” The insurer relied on a surveyor’s report that failed to conclusively explain how the fire started but doubted its accidental nature.

The Supreme Court dismissed this reasoning, holding that “once a loss due to fire is established and there is no allegation or finding of fraud or instigation by the insured, the cause of fire becomes immaterial.”

⚖️ What the Court Said

The Court drew on its earlier decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Mudit Roadways [(2024) 3 SCC 193]* and reiterated the following legal tests for a valid fire insurance claim:

a) There must be an actual fire — mere heating, charring, or chemical reaction is not enough.
b) Something must have burned which ought not to have burned.
c) The fire must have an accidental character — even if it was caused by a third party without the insured’s consent, it will still be treated as accidental.

Once these elements are met, the insurer cannot repudiate the claim merely because the precise cause of the fire is unknown.

The Court emphasized that a fire insurance policy is a contract of indemnity — its object is to make good the loss, not to punish the insured for being unable to prove the exact reason the fire started.

“The cause of fire, in the absence of fraud or instigation by the insured, is irrelevant. It must be presumed that the fire is accidental and within the policy’s coverage.”
— Justice Dipankar Datta, writing for the Bench

📊 Key Facts of the Case

• The fire broke out at Orion Conmerx Pvt. Ltd.’s premises in September 2010.

• The insurer repudiated the claim, relying on the final surveyor’s report stating the fire was “not accidental.”

• No evidence suggested the insured caused or conspired to cause the fire.

• The Supreme Court found the surveyor’s report “inconclusive” and the repudiation “untenable in law.”

🔍 Why This Judgment Matters

1️⃣ Protects Genuine Policyholders

The ruling shields honest policyholders from unfair denials when insurers rely on inconclusive survey reports. Once a fire is proved and there’s no evidence of foul play, insurers cannot hide behind technicalities.

2️⃣ Limits Insurer’s Discretion

Insurers often reject claims by alleging negligence or “non-accidental” cause. The Court has now reaffirmed that such defenses are invalid unless supported by clear evidence of instigation or fraud.

3️⃣ Clarifies the Role of Surveyors

The Court reiterated that a surveyor’s report is not sacrosanct. It is only one piece of evidence — if inconclusive or contrary to the record, it cannot justify repudiation.

4️⃣ Sets Consumer-Friendly Precedent

This judgment strengthens consumer protection under the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) guidelines and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, where denial of a legitimate insurance claim can be challenged as deficiency in service.

🧑‍⚖️ Legal Takeaways for Consumers

• Document your loss: Take photos/videos, fire department reports, and inventory lists immediately.

• Report promptly: Notify your insurer and file a formal claim within the policy’s time limits.

• Insist on transparency: Request copies of surveyor reports and repudiation reasons.

• Appeal denials: If your claim is wrongly rejected, approach:

  • IRDAI Grievance Redressal Cell (https://www.irdai.gov.in)

  • Insurance Ombudsman under the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 2017

  • Consumer Commissions (District, State, or National under the CPA, 2019)

 PRAN’s View

This judgment rebalances the scales of justice in insurance disputes. Fire insurance exists to provide peace of mind, not procedural anxiety. Insurers must act in good faith and not deny claims on speculative grounds.

When the Supreme Court says “cause is immaterial if the insured didn’t instigate it”, it is not just stating law — it is restoring fairness.

---

Reference:

• National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Orion Conmerx Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1047, decided on 30 October 2025.

• New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mudit Roadways, (2024) 3 SCC 193.

Author: Public Right Action Network (PRAN)

📞 Get in Touch with PRAN

📧 Email: publicrightaction@gmail.com & pranindia@zohomail.in 🐦 Twitter (X): @ActionPran

🌐 Facebook: facebook.com/profile.php?id=100067577379673
💼 LinkedIn Group: linkedin.com/groups/8225353

🔗 LinkedIn Page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/109035137/admin/dashboard/
📝 Blog: publicrightaction.blogspot.com 🎥 YouTube: youtube.com/@PRAN-f4e

Vehicle Out of Route Permit? – Insurer Must Pay First, Recover Later: SC Judgment

 🚍 Route Permit Violation Can’t Block Justice: Supreme Court Protects Accident Victims’ Right to Compensation

Case: K. Nagendra v. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: 29 October 2025 Indian Kanoon+2SciTech India+2
Citation: 2025 INSC 1270 caseciter.com+1

A Win for Road Accident Victims

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that insurance companies cannot deny compensation to accident victims merely because the vehicle was operating outside its permitted route.

The ruling in K. Nagendra v. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. strengthens the principle that technical breaches of policy conditions must not defeat the social purpose of motor insurance—to ensure prompt and fair compensation to victims of road accidents.

---

🧭 The Case in Brief

The case arose from a tragic accident involving a bus that was plying outside its permitted route. The insurer refused to pay compensation, claiming that the route permit violation amounted to a breach of policy conditions and absolved them of liability.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation to the claimants, but the insurer contested it. After conflicting High Court rulings, the issue reached the Supreme Court.

The apex court held that:

“The insurance company cannot escape its statutory liability towards the victims merely because the vehicle was plying beyond the specified route. The insurer must first pay the compensation and may thereafter recover the same from the vehicle owner.” caseciter.com+1

What the Supreme Court Said

The Bench observed that the Motor Vehicles Act is a social welfare legislation, intended to protect innocent victims and their families from the devastating financial impact of road accidents.

Denying compensation on narrow technicalities—such as a route deviation, expired permit, or minor irregularities in paperwork—would, the Court said, be “offensive to the sense of justice.”

The Court therefore applied the “pay and recover” principle, directing the insurer to compensate the victims and then recover the amount from the vehicle owner if policy violations are established. Rawlaw+1

This approach ensures that victims are not trapped in endless litigation between insurers and owners, and that the purpose of compulsory motor insurance—to guarantee compensation—is not undermined.

The Legal Principle: “Pay and Recover”

The “pay and recover” doctrine is not new, but this judgment gives it renewed strength.
The principle was first clearly laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297, where the Court held that even if there is a policy breach—like an unlicensed driver or permit violation—the insurer must pay the award to the victim first and then recover it from the insured.

Over the years, courts have applied this doctrine in cases involving:

• Drivers without valid licenses

• Vehicles used for unauthorised commercial purposes

• Permit violations or expired permits

This latest ruling extends the logic even further: a route permit violation cannot be used to delay or deny compensation.

🔍 Why This Judgment Matters

1. Strengthens Victim Protection

   • Victims or their families will no longer suffer because of paperwork disputes between insurers and owners.

   • Compensation will reach those in need first, ensuring financial relief after an accident.

2. Reinforces Social Purpose of Insurance

   • The Court reminded that insurance laws are not meant to shield companies from liability, but to ensure justice and public welfare.

   • Technicalities must not override the spirit of the law.

3. Balances Interests Fairly

   • While victims get compensation promptly, insurers retain the right to recover from the vehicle owner if a genuine policy violation is proven.

4. Encourages Responsible Vehicle Owners

   • Owners are reminded that permit and policy compliance are mandatory, and violations can still cost them in recovery proceedings.

Expert Perspective

This ruling echoes the Court’s consistent pro-victim stance in recent years. In Pappu v. Vinod Kumar Lamba (2018), the Supreme Court held that “mere technical breach cannot defeat the rights of third parties.” Similarly, in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru (2003), the Court emphasised that the insurer’s first duty is towards victims, not contractual loopholes.

Legal experts believe this case will guide MACTs to adopt a more claimant-friendly interpretation in permit-related disputes.

The Real-World Context

According to Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRTH) data, over 1.5 lakh people die annually in road crashes in India. Commercial vehicles—buses, trucks, and taxis—are involved in nearly 40% of fatal crashes.

Yet, victims or their dependents often face delays and denials of claims due to technical objections from insurers, such as:

• “Driver had no badge”

• “Vehicle was off-route”

• “Permit expired two days before accident”

This judgment sends a strong message: insurance cannot be used as an escape route for liability when lives are lost and families devastated.

What Victims & Claimants Should Know

If you or someone you know is involved in an accident where the insurer claims “permit violation” or “off-route operation”:

1. Do not panic or accept rejection at face value.
   The Supreme Court has made it clear that such violations do not bar compensation.

2. File or pursue your MACT claim confidently.
   Mention this judgment (K. Nagendra v. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., 29 October 2025, 2025 INSC 1270) and earlier rulings like Swaran Singh.

3. The insurer must pay first.
   Any recovery action against the owner happens later, without affecting your award.

4. Engage a lawyer experienced in motor accident claims.
   They can ensure that the insurer’s technical defences don’t delay your rightful compensation.

 For Insurers & Owners: Compliance Still Counts

While the judgment protects victims, it also reminds vehicle owners to maintain up-to-date route permits, fitness certificates, and insurance policies. If a violation occurs, the insurer may recover the amount later—potentially with interest and costs.

Insurers, meanwhile, are encouraged to adopt a compassionate approach in handling claims—honouring the social spirit of motor insurance rather than exploiting technical gaps.

Justice Beyond Paperwork

The Supreme Court’s verdict restores faith in the principle that law exists to serve justice, not bureaucracy.
By ensuring that victims receive compensation even when vehicles stray beyond their approved routes, the Court has reaffirmed that human lives matter more than permits and routes.

For India’s over-worked roads and under-protected victims, this ruling is not just a legal milestone—it’s a humane reminder that justice must travel faster than red tape.

---

Author: Amarjeet Singh, Advocate
Legal & Public Policy Analyst | Road Safety & Consumer Rights Advocate
Originally published on Public Right Action Blog

✈️ When Airlines Trick You into Paying More: The Emirates “Dark Pattern” Case Every Traveler Should Know

Imagine booking a long international flight with your spouse, only to find later that you paid extra for something others got for free — just because the airline’s website didn’t tell you the full truth.

That’s exactly what happened to a Mumbai couple who recently took on Emirates Airlines — and won.

🧾 The Case in Short

Dr. Keshab Nandy and Mrs. Meenu Pandey booked a Mumbai–New York flight via Dubai with Emirates Airlines in 2017. When reserving tickets online, they paid ₹7,200 for adjacent seats because Dr. Nandy, being diabetic and hypertensive, needed his wife’s help during the journey.

But on reaching the airport, they discovered that free adjacent seats were still available and many passengers who hadn’t paid were allotted them at check-in.

When they complained, Emirates said the seat-selection charge was “optional” and “non-refundable.”

Feeling cheated, the couple filed a complaint before the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, alleging that Emirates had misled consumers by concealing that free adjacent seats were available closer to departure.

The Commission’s Findings

The District Commission ruled in favour of the consumers, and the order was later upheld by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Appeal No. A/2021/15, decided on 30 September 2024).

The State Commission found that Emirates:

• Failed to disclose material information that adjacent seats could be obtained free of cost 48 hours before departure;

• Created an artificial sense of compulsion or scarcity, misleading passengers to pay extra; and

• Thus committed deficiency in service and engaged in an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The airline was directed to:

• Refund ₹7,200 with interest from 5 October 2017;

• Pay ₹5,000 as compensation for mental agony; and

• Pay ₹3,000 as litigation cost.

🕵️‍♂️ “Dark Patterns” — The New Digital Trap

The Commission noted that Emirates’ conduct resembled what we now call “dark patterns” — manipulative online design practices that trick users into making certain choices.

Although India’s official Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023 were issued later by the Department of Consumer Affairs, the Commission recognised that Emirates’ design fit the same mould:

• Hiding free options;

• Framing paid features as essential;

• And exploiting the consumer’s lack of complete information.

This case is among the first in India to explicitly connect deceptive online interface design with the concept of unfair trade practice.

💡 What You Can Do as a Smart Consumer

1. Pause before paying extra. Check whether that “paid feature” (seat,  add-on) might become free later.

2. Look for disclosure sections. Airlines and e-commerce portals must display all options clearly.

3. Take screenshots if an interface seems misleading. They help as evidence.

4. Complain:

   • Online via https://consumerhelpline.gov.in

   • Or approach your local Consumer Commission.

5. Report dark patterns directly to the Department of Consumer Affairs (https://consumeraffairs.nic.in).

6. File in Consumer Complaint in your District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission

🚨 Why This Matters

With travel, shopping, and even healthcare going digital, manipulative design is becoming the new frontier of consumer exploitation. The Emirates ruling reminds us that even global corporations must uphold fairness and transparency.

At Public Right Action Network (PRAN), we believe every click should be a conscious choice — not a coerced one.
Transparency online isn’t a privilege; it’s a consumer right.

---

📚 References

1. M/s Emirates Airlines v. Dr. Keshab Nandy & Anr., Appeal No. A/2021/15, decided on 30 September 2024, Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai.

2. IndiaLaw Blog, “Concealment of Free Seats Amounts to Unfair Trade Practice: Maharashtra SCDRC Finds Emirates Airlines Deficient in Service,” published October 2024. https://www.indialaw.in/blog/consumer/emirates-penalized-for-hiding-free-seats-dark-pattern-case/

3. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g) (deficiency), 2(1)(r) (unfair trade practice).

4. Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of India (Notification dated 30 November 2023).

---

#ConsumerRights #DarkPatterns #AirlineTransparency #EmiratesCase #PRAN #DigitalFairness #KnowYourRights

Expired Amul Lassi Sold in Rohtak: A Wake-Up Call for Food Safety Enforcement

When My Kids Bought Expired Amul Lassi: A Parent’s Wake-Up Call on Food Safety

It was just another evening in Model Town, Rohtak, when my kids stopped by a nearby Amul Parlour for a quick treat — their favourite Amul Lassi. It’s a trusted brand, right? Something we’ve all grown up with. But when I glanced at the pack a few minutes later, my heart sank.

The best before date read 16 October 2025 — already expired. The lassi they were about to drink was unsafe.

😔 Shock, Then Anger

I went straight back to the shop. The shopkeeper looked uneasy. When I showed him the expiry date, he admitted that he had already informed Amul about the expired stock. But what he said next was even more shocking — “Sir, they told me to sell it anyway.”

Though he refunded the amount, that moment left me shaken. It wasn’t about ₹40. It was about trust — and the thought of what could have happened if my children had consumed it.

 The Law Is Clear — But Who’s Watching?

Under India’s Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, selling expired food is illegal.
It’s not a “small mistake.” It’s an offence punishable with heavy penalties and even jail time, especially when it endangers health.

Yet, in reality, these violations often go unnoticed or ignored. Until something goes wrong.

🪳 When You See One Cockroach…

You know what they say — if you see one cockroach, there are many more hiding behind.
If an expired Amul Lassi can be sold openly from an official parlour, how many other shops might be doing the same? How many more expired or unsafe products are silently slipping into our homes?

This is not just one parent’s experience — it’s a symptom of systemic neglect.

👨‍👩‍👧 Why This Scares Every Parent

We teach our kids to avoid street food, to trust packaged brands — but what if even branded products fail us?
Dairy items like lassi and milk are consumed mostly by children. Selling expired dairy isn’t just careless — it’s endangering young lives. A simple lapse in oversight can lead to food poisoning or worse.

🧾 What Every Consumer Should Do

If you ever find expired or unsafe food:

1. Keep the packet and bill as proof.

2. Report it via the Food Safety Connect app or at https://fssai.gov.in.

3. File a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

4. Share responsibly to alert others — awareness saves lives.

🗣️ My Message to Amul and Authorities

Amul has built its reputation as the taste of India — but trust is earned through action, not slogans.
I urge Amul to investigate this immediately and ensure expired stock is never allowed to reach consumers. The Food Safety Department, Haryana, must inspect local parlours and enforce strict compliance.

❤️ From a Parent, Not Just a Consumer

This isn’t about blame. It’s about responsibility — towards our children, our families, and our right to safe food. One small expiry label nearly went unnoticed — but it carried a big message: food safety cannot be taken for granted, no matter how big the brand.

---

#FoodSafety #ConsumerRights #Amul #Rohtak #JagoGrahakJago #SafeFoodForKids

AI and the Future of Legal Practice: The End of Routine, Not of Reason

AI and the Future of Legal Practice: The End of Routine, Not of Reason

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has arrived at the doorstep of the legal profession — not as a replacement, but as a revolution. From drafting agreements and summarizing judgments to researching precedents in seconds, AI is transforming how lawyers and courts operate.

While this transformation is inevitable, its impact depends on one crucial factor: how wisely we use it.

From Routine to Real Strategy

Much of legal practice has long revolved around repetitive, time-consuming tasks — drafting notices, reviewing documents, and conducting case law research. These are precisely the areas where AI excels. What once took days can now be done in minutes.

This doesn’t threaten lawyers; it frees them. When technology handles routine work, lawyers can focus on what machines cannot — strategic thinking, advocacy, negotiation, and understanding human behavior.

The Decline of the “Big Library” Advantage

In the past, experience and access to large law libraries defined dominance in the legal field. Senior advocates and big firms naturally had the upper hand.

But AI is flattening this hierarchy. A young advocate with the right prompts and tools can now produce research and drafts comparable to those of established professionals. The power has shifted from possession of information to application of intelligence.

As Justice Surya Kant recently observed, “Artificial intelligence may assist in researching authorities, generating drafts, or highlighting inconsistencies, but it cannot perceive the tremor in a witness’s voice, the anguish behind a petition, or the moral weight of a decision.”

A Tool or a Trap — It Depends on the User

AI can democratize access to justice, make legal services more affordable, and empower smaller firms to compete on equal footing. But it can also be misused — producing inaccurate results, breaching confidentiality, or weakening critical reasoning if used blindly.

As Justice Surya Kant rightly said, “While data may inform decisions, it must never dictate them.” The responsibility to ensure ethical and accurate use of AI lies squarely with the user.

How Lawyers Can Use AI to Stay Ahead

Rather than fearing automation, forward-looking lawyers are using AI as a competitive advantage. Here are practical ways to stay ahead:

1. AI-Powered Legal Research – Tools like ChatGPT, Casetext, SCC Online AI, or Lexis+ AI can instantly summarize judgments, extract precedents, and analyze arguments. Learn to use advanced prompts and verification methods.

2. Smart Drafting and Review – Use AI to draft contracts, pleadings, or affidavits — then refine them using your legal judgment. AI can flag inconsistencies or missing clauses, saving hours of manual review.

3. Case Preparation and Summaries – AI can summarize bulky case files, witness statements, and discovery documents to help you focus on core arguments.

4. Client Communication and Accessibility – Chatbots or AI assistants can answer basic client queries, improving accessibility and freeing your time for complex consultations.

5. Predictive Analysis – Some advanced tools can analyze case patterns and predict outcomes based on historical data — useful for strategy planning.

6. Learning and Continuous Development – Use AI to stay updated on recent judgments, legal trends, and international best practices. AI-curated insights can help you adapt faster than traditional methods.

7. Ethical Vigilance – Always cross-check AI outputs with authoritative sources. Maintain client confidentiality and avoid overreliance — AI assists, it doesn’t decide.

By integrating AI into daily work, lawyers can multiply productivity, reduce costs, and deliver higher value — without losing the human essence of lawyering.

The Human Core of Justice

Ultimately, law is not just about logic — it’s about life. Empathy, moral judgment, and understanding human suffering can never be coded into an algorithm. Courts, clients, and society will continue to rely on human advocates to interpret fairness, not just facts.

AI may transform how justice is delivered, but justice itself will remain a human enterprise.

In short:
AI won’t replace lawyers. But lawyers who use AI will replace those who don’t.

---

#AIinLaw #LegalTech #FutureOfLaw #JusticeAndAI #AccessToJustice #LegalInnovation #PublicRightAction