Holding Hotel Taj guilty of deficiency in services and misbehaving with the complaint, UT consumer forum has directed Taj GVK Hotel and Resorts Limited, Sector 17, to pay a sum of Rs 5,000 as compensation. The forum further directed the respondent to refund Rs 150 to the complainant, which were charged in excess.
Complainant Hardeep Singh, a resident of Patiala, had alleged that on October 26, 2009, he along with his family came to Taj GVK Hotel and Resorts Limited, Sector 17, Chandigarh, and placed order for Assam tea, cappuccino and ‘sprouts’ keeping in view the menu provided to him.
Singh alleged that in the menu the rate for ‘sprouts’ was mentioned as Rs 200 but in the bill provided to
him he was charged Rs 350 for it. When he brought the matter to the notice of the manager he was allegedly insulted and to avoid further humiliation he paid the total bill amount of Rs 731 and thus claimed to have paid Rs 150 extra.
In their reply, the respondents admitted that the complainant along with his family had visited their hotel and that the menu rate of ‘sprouts’ was Rs 200, but it was further submitted that the complainant ordered for ‘sprout chat’, menu price for which was Rs 350. They maintained that the complainant was strictly charged as per the menu. They further denied that the complainant was insulted by any of their staff members.
The forum found that ‘sprouts’, which carried a price tag of Rs 200, were available for breakfast alone during the timespan of 7 am to 10:30 am whereas the ‘sprout chaat’ was available under the category of ‘‘alads’ and it was available from 11:30 am to 11:30 pm. The bill was issued to the complainant at 11:07 am on October 26, 2009, which means that he had placed the order much prior to that.
UT consumer forum said that there was clear deficiency in service on the part of the respondents after receiving the order for ‘sprouts’ as delivered ‘sprout chaat’.
source: Times Of India
BoM asked to pay compensation to its customer for negligence
The District Consumer Forum has ordered Bank of Maharashtra to pay Rs 10,000 compensation plus Rs 3,000 expenses to the bank customer Raju Adkar for service negligence and mental agony caused to him.
Raju pointed out the bank’s mistake to the officers concerned and they too accepted the mistake on account of faulty computer system.
But again, repeating the same mistake in the months of April and May, 2009, the bank returned Raju’s two cheques of Rs 25,000 and of Rs 12,161 citing insufficient balance as the reason, though there was enough balance in his account.
Raju was agonized by the bank’s repeated faulty service. In his complaint to the Form, Raju has said that the bank’s act has spoiled his reputation.
The Forum, after listening both the sides, the forum president Sudhakar Binwade and member Manisha Khadamkar held the Bank responsible for showing negligence in its services and ordered to pay Rs 10,000 within 45 days to the complainant Raju Adkar.
If the bank fails to pay it within 45 days, afterwards, it will have to pay 10% interest on the compensation. The Forum also asked the bank to pay Rs 3,000 as expenses to Raju.
source: DNA India
Railways accountable for consumer troubles, compensation granted !
When you buy a confirmed ticket to travel and are allotted a particular seat or berth, you expect that reservation to be available to you on the day of travel. After all, that is the very purpose of booking a confirmed ticket – it guarantees your travel as per your ticket.
But in the Indian Railways lexicon, the word ‘reservation’ has an entirely different meaning. If you go by the railways interpretation of the word, it does not guarantee reserved seat or berth. The Indian Railways Reservation Rules say: “The Railway Administration will endeavour to provide reserved accommodation but does not guarantee the same and will admit no claim for compensation for inconvenience, loss or extra expense due to such accommodation including carriages, not being provided or reserved carriage not been attached to a particular train. The supply of any particular type of carriage or the provision of a particular berth and seat is also not guaranteed.”
In other words, the railways try very hard to escape liability for the consequences of any negligence or deficiency on their part in issuing tickets. Fortunately for consumers, the consumer courts have foiled all such efforts. I remember one of the first cases on the issue filed before the consumer court, wherein a young mother, travelling with an infant, had a harrowing experience, thanks to a careless mistake in ticketing made by railway officials. Medha Karnik was issued a confirmed ticket to travel from Tiruchirapalli to Chennai and then from Chennai to Mumbai by Chennai Express.
However, when Medha reached Chennai station, she found to her horror that Chennai Express did not run on Wednesdays at all. With the railway officials at Chennai ignoring her pleas for help, Medha was finally forced to travel with the baby on another train, in an unreserved compartment and on a luggage loft for 27 hours without sleep or food. When a consumer group took up this case before the consumer court, the railways argued that the passenger was to blame, as she had failed to check the railway timetable !
Dismissing this, the Commission said the railways had to take responsibility for their negligence and pay for the consequences. It awarded a compensation of Rs 7,500 (S.Pushpavanam Vs The General Manager, Southern Railway, OP No 7 of 1991) In a more recent case, four passengers were awarded a compensation of Rs 10,000 each for the inconvenience caused to them on account of the railways failure to make the promised reservation for the onward journey. (Union Government of India Vs Subhash Chand Jasuja, RP No78 of 2001, decided in 2006) But obviously, the railways have not learnt any lessons.
Rajendra Maleyvar: I bough five confirmed tickets (II 2S class) for our journey from Delhi to Bhiwani on January 24, 2009, by Kisan Express and return tickets by the same train the next day. However on reaching the railway stations (Delhi and Bhiwani) on the scheduled dates we were informed that there were no reserved coaches attached to the respective trains on both days of our journeys. This put us to a lot of inconvenience and caused avoidable financial loss, besides disrupting our programme. The railways, however, are not responding positively to my demand for compensation.
source: Yahoo! news
Dentist to compensate for extracting wrong tooth
A dentist, accused of extracting a wrong tooth, has been directed by a consumer dispute forum here to pay Rs.57,200 as compensation to the patient.
The district consumer disputes redressal forum Thursay directed Kohli to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000 for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant, Rs.5,000 for covering the cost of litigation and Rs.2,200 for the medical expense.
According to the complaint, Poonam Devi had in June 2009 gone to Ashima Kohli’s private dental clinic in Sector 30 here.
“I visited the clinic as I had pain in my lower jaw. Earlier, a doctor had suggested the extraction of my sixth tooth in the lower jaw, as it was infected. I apprised Kohli about this, but she diagnosed that the seventh tooth was causing pain,” Poonam Devi told IANS Friday.
“She extracted the seventh tooth, but it did not bring me any relief. On visiting a government doctor, I found that the actual problem was still with the sixth tooth. When I approached Kohli, she misbehaved with me and my husband and refused to meet us. Following this, we approached the consumer forum,” she added.
The consumer forum referred the medical reports to the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER) here. A special team of senior doctors was constituted to look into the matter, which gave its decision in the favour of Devi.
source: Economic Times
Consumer Courts at Chandigarh
Consumer Court Chandigarh
State Commissions Chandigarh
Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Plot No.5-B, Madhya Marg,
Sector – 19 B,
Chandigarh –160 019
STD CODE: 0172
E-mail: stcomm@chd.nic.in & cdg-sforum@nic.in
States/District Forum Chandigarh
District Forum-I Union Territory, Chandigarh
District Consumer Forum-I,
Plot No.5-B, Sector
19-B, Madhya Marg, CHANDIGARH
0172-2549196
District Forum-II Union Territory, Chandigarh.
District Consumer Forum-II,
Plot No.5-B, Sector
19-B, Madhya Marg, CHANDIGARH
0172-2549196