International banking major Citi Bank has been imposed a fine of Rs 30,000 by the country’s apex consumer forum for filing “meritless” petitions against lower consumer fora order asking it to pay Rs 1.80 lakh to one of its car loan customers.
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission dismissed City Bank’s plea challenging Orissa State Consumer Commission order, saying it has come before the NCDRC “to cover up” its own “faults and negligent acts” in belatedly challenging the district consumer forum order, which had directed the bank to pay Rs 1.80 lakh to its car loan customer.
While imposing penalty on the bank, Justice V B Gupta said the state consumer commission had rightly dismissed its appeal against the district consumer forum as it had filed it after a delay of more than 3 years.
“It is well settled that no leniency should be shown to such litigants, who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence goes on filing meritless petitions in different fora,” the NCDRC said.
“As the two fora below have given detailed and reasoned orders which do not call for any interference nor they suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, the present petition is dismissed with punitive costs of Rs 30,000,” it said.
Citi Bank had approached the apex consumer forum against the order of Orissa consumer forum which had decided not to hear its plea after a district consumer forum directed the bank to pay Rs 1.8 lakh to Orissa businessman Pradeep Kumar Patri.
Patri had purchased a car on a loan from the Citi Bank in 2006 and was to pay 60 EMIs via post-dated cheques. He had moved the district forum alleging that the bank did not furnish accounts details to him as to whether there is any outstanding dues and the vehicle was “un-unauthorisedly repossessed” in October 10, 2006.
The bank in its reply said some post-dated cheques issued by the customer had bounced due to which installments were not realised. The bank had re-sold the vehicle to another person in Chhattisgarh a month later.
The district forum in January 2008 ordered Citi Bank to refund Rs 1.74 lakh to the complainant and also pay Rs 5,000 as “compensation for mental agony” and Rs 1,000 as litigation cost.
After the state consumer commission dismissed the bank’s appeal against the district forum order on the grounds of delay, it moved NCDRC claiming it had been following the case in the district forum but its lawyer did not inform it as to when it gave the order.
The NCDRC, however, rejected its plea saying Citi Bank is a multi-national bank having large number of employees in its legal department and it did not file the appeal in time only due to “negligence”.(PTI)
source: http://www.rtitoday.com/detailarticle.php?articleid=1527

In a decision which may give lawyers a run for their money, the Supreme Court has said non-advocates can represent litigants in the country’s consumer courts as their authorised agents.
The decision by a three-judge Bench led by Justice Dalveer Bhandari is a blow to the lawyer community, which challenged competition from persons without law degrees.The Consumer Protection Act, a compact statute, says that a complainant can either personally appear or be represented by an authorised agent or an advocate.The court refused to intervene, saying that it cannot question or change the original legislative intent of the Act.
Justice Bhandari said the legislature would have thought that the poor litigants who come to the consumer court may not be able to afford the “heavy” lawyers’ fee.The court turned down the Bar Council of India plea, that only advocates should be allowed to appear before a consumer forum.
But it said that the National Consumer Commission, the highest consumer redressal forum in the country, has framed guidelines for conduct of these “non-advocates”. (Express News Service)
source: http://www.rtitoday.com/detailarticle.php?articleid=1362

The city’s power distribution firm BSES Rajdhani Power has been fined Rs 25,000 by a Delhi consumer court for raising an inflated electricity bill of Rs 1.17 lakh against an user and lodging a false power theft case against him.
“Theft case was registered by BSES against the consumer and later it was withdrawn and refund was agreed to be made which shows that the theft case was without substance. Refund of money to him has been delayed for a very long time without any genuine ground,” a city district consumer forum presided by MP Mehndiratta said while giving the relief to the user.
“Holding BSES Rajdhani Power to be deficient in service, we allow the complaint to the effect that the company shall pay Rs 25,000 as compensation within one month from the receipt of this order,” it said.
The order came on a complaint by South Delhi resident RK Saxena who alleged the discom lodged a false case of “dishonest abstraction of energy” and forced him to part with Rs 32,000 against the bill amount of Rs 1.17 lakh under threat of disconnection.
A theft case was also registered before a Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA), but the discom, realising its mistake, withdrew its case in March 2005. This led the PLA to direct the discom to refund the amount of Rs 32,000 in seven days.
BSES issued the cheque but not to Saxena saying the meter connection was on a different name. After he moved the consumer court in 2007 seeking compensation and refund of the amount, the discom gave the cheque in his name in 2010.
The court said when the case was registered against Saxena, the cheque also should have been issued in his name.
source @ http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/current-affairs/bses-fined-for-faulty-power-bill-lodging-false-case_556160.html