CAIT files complaint against Flipkart, Amitabh Bachchan for 'misleading' ad
New Delhi: (PTI) Traders' body CAIT has filed a complaint with the Ministry of Consumer Affairs against a Flipkart advertisement featuring Bollywood star Amitabh Bachchan on the upcoming Big Billion Days sale, terming the advertisement as "misleading".
The Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) in its complaint to the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) termed the advertisement "misleading" and against the country's small retailers. It has also sought withdrawal of the advertisement, according to a statement.
CAIT demanded that a penalty be imposed on Flipkart as per relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act for "false or misleading advertisement" and imposition of a Rs 10 lakh fine on Bachchan.
An email sent to Flipkart did not elicit a response. Bachchan could not be contacted for comments.
"As per the definition under Section 2(47), Flipkart, acting through Amitabh Bachchan (endorser), have misled the public regarding the price at which mobile phones are being made available by sellers/suppliers in the smartphone market of India. "This has the effect of disparaging the goods, services or trade of another person," CAIT Secretary General Praveen Khandelwal said in the complaint. Further, he said as per rule 4 of the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022, the advertisement by Flipkart "is misleading because it doesn't contain truthful and honest representation and is wholly incorrect, malicious, misleading and manipulative".
Last week, CAIT called out the advertisement with Bachchan promoting Flipkart's upcoming Big Billion Day sale and telling consumers that deals on mobiles won't be available offline at retail stores.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Need to be taught lesson: SC refuses to entertain bail plea of Mumbai BMW hit-and-run case accused
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court has refused to entertain the bail plea of Mihir Shah, the son of a former Shiv Sena leader, in the 2024 Mumbai BMW hit-and-run case, saying "these boys need to be taught a lesson".
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A G Masih took into account that the accused belonged to an affluent family and his father was associated with the Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde-led faction of the Shiv Sena.
"He parks his Mercedes in the shed, takes out his BMW and crashes it and goes absconding. Let him be inside for some time. These boys need to be taught a lesson," the bench observed on Friday while refusing to entertain the bail plea.
Senior advocate Rebecca John, appearing for Shah, said the high court allowed him to seek bail after the testimony of key witnesses was recorded in the case. However, sensing the mood of the court, she sought permission to withdraw the plea, which was allowed.
Shah (24) was arrested on July 9 last year, two days after he allegedly rammed his BMW car into a two-wheeler in Mumbai's Worli area, killing Kaveri Nakhwa (45) and leaving her husband, Pradeep Nakhwa, injured.
The accused allegedly sped off towards the Bandra-Worli Sea Link after the accident, even as the woman remained on the bonnet of the car and then got entangled in its wheels for a distance of more than 1.5 kilometres.
Shah's driver, Rajrishi Bidawat, who was also present in the car at the time of the accident, was arrested on the day of the alleged accident. Both are in judicial custody.
Shah has challenged the November 21 order of the Bombay High Court that denied him bail in the case after noting that he was heavily inebriated and failed to stop the car even after hitting a scooter and dragging the victim under his vehicle.
The high court had said in the order that the conduct of the accused at the time of the alleged offence and afterwards does not inspire confidence in the court to grant him bail. It had said that Shah had accidentally crashed into the scooter but sped away at high speed, dragging the victim underneath the car.
His further actions indicate a clear intent to escape the consequences and evade arrest, the high court had noted, adding that his exchanging seats with his driver, calling his father and leaving the scene of offence indicate the predilection to tamper with evidence and/or intimidate witnesses.
