https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464040 SC allowed the appeal in part and remanded the matter to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for determination of restitution. The carrier was held liable to pay the purchasers for damaged goods, but, having paid the price, was entitled to the return of the 198 damaged items from the seller or, if they were no longer available, to the value realized by the seller. The seller was not entitled to watch-and-ward charges. If the seller fails to return the goods or pay their realized value, it must make restitution to avoid unjust enrichment. No costs. en-us Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Sep 2025 12:24:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464040 SC allowed the appeal in part and remanded the matter to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for determination of restitution. The carrier was held liable to pay the purchasers for damaged goods, but, having paid the price, was entitled to the return of the 198 damaged items from the seller or, if they were no longer available, to the value realized by the seller. The seller was not entitled to watch-and-ward charges. If the seller fails to return the goods or pay their realized value, it must make restitution to avoid unjust enrichment. No costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464040