The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib in Punjab has directed ICICI Bank Limited to pay Rs 10,000 as mental agony and harassment, Rs 5,000 as litigation charges to Hans and Company, Sirhind.
Hans and Company, Sirhind had filed complaint before the Forum on September 3, 2009 against ICICI Bank Limited. The company counsel Anil Gupta informed that the company entered into a Credit Franchise Agreement(CFA) on December 29, 2006 with the bank for earning his livelihood and after entering into the CFA, the company had established an office at Sirhind after spending around Rs 3 lakh and paid a rent of Rs 6,000 per month till the closure of the local bank branch.
As per the complaint, at the time of executing CFA, the bank obtained a FDR which was matured on January 14, 2008 for the amount of Rs 5 lakh on interest rate of 8 per cent per annum for security purpose through Amanpreet Singh. The bank terminated CFA at its own and closed its business in Fatehgarh Sahib area and now the bank has no right to retain the FDR of Rs 5 lakh taken as security but the bank are not returning the same and harassing the company intentionally which is big deficiency in service on the part of the bank.
During the hearing of the case, the bank agreed that CFA was entered between the company and the bank and the company was required to perform duties and obligations mentioned in the agreement and the company failed to perform his obligations agreed under the CFA. As per the bank, in case of default in the loans sourced by the company, the bank was entitled under the agreement to adjust the amounts payment and due to the bank, against the security deposited by the company with the bank. In the present case, the company was appointed as Credit Franchise and there are 16 cases currently pending which were disbursed by the company to pay their dues and it is repeatedly requested by the bank to fulfill his obligations under the agreement but the company has failed to do so the amount is not refundable.
The Forum observed in judgment that the CFA in clause 16 titled as Termination it is specially written that either party may terminate this agreement by providing two months prior written notice. The ICICI Bank may without any notice terminate this agreement but the conditions laid down in this clause is not violated by the complainant. The bank was required to give prior notice of two months to terminate the agreement. The legal notice was issued on August 7, 2009 by the company to the bank to refund the Rs 5 lakh which was retained by the bank in the shape of FDR which was matured on January 1, 2008 with interest kep as security.
During the hearing of the case, the bank admitted that the FDR with them it and they have paid the amount of interest of Rs 1,49,342 but they failed to give any prior notice to the company before terminating the agreement and neither they have refunded the FDR kept as security.
The Forum accepted the complaint and order the Bank to return the FDR of Rs 5 lakh to the company with 8 per cent interest till its realization deducting the amount of interest already paid the bank.
source: Punjab Newsline
School gets rap for retaining fee
Terming the act of KBDAV School, Sector 7, Chandigarh, unjustified in retaining the total fees of a student who had decided not to pursue his studies at the institute, UT district consumer disputes reprisal forum directed it to refund the admission fee after deducting administrative charges and processing charges.
The forum observed, “In our opinion, educational schools or institutions cannot be permitted to behave like business establishments that work with a profit motive. The respondent school is an education institution/school and cannot act like a commercial establishment and there is no justification on the part of the respondent in retaining the substantial fees paid by a student, who decides not to pursue his/her studies in the said school/institution.”
Complainant Ainesh Chandra, who had field an application through his father Arun Chandra, a resident of Nayagaon, alleged that he took admission in Class VI in the school for the session 2010-11 and deposited admission fee of Rs 15,900 on February 17 this year.
He was told that classes would start on April 7. He also appeared in the test for admission at St John?s School, Sector 26, Chandigarh, on February 27, 2010, the result of which was declared on March 25 and he was successful.
After considering his options, he decided to take admission in St John?s School and deposited a fee of Rs 11,135. Thereafter, he surrendered the seat in the respondent school before the start of the classes and sought a refund. He contacted DAV a number of times and on May 12, they handed over a cheque for Rs 3,000 against the deposit of Rs 15,900.
In their written reply, the respondent stated that the deposit of fee was towards admission and tuition fee for three months, which was non-refundable in view of rules mentioned on page 30 of the school diary.
Further, the rules regarding non-refund of fees and other charges were duly displayed on the notice board, which were never challenged by the complainant.
It was pleaded by the respondent that caution money of Rs 3,000 was refunded to the complainant after making deductions according to school rules.
The consumer forum stated that in its view, the respondents could deduct some amount towards processing fee and administrative charges and the balance amount should be refunded.
“Therefore, we are of the view that the respondent was unjustified in its act by retaining the total fees of Rs 15,900 of the complainant. The respondents should have, at the most, deducted a sum of Rs 1,000 only, towards processing fee and administrative charges, which they have incurred at the time of admission of the complainant,” the forum stated.
The forum directed the respondent to refund Rs 11,900 (after deducting Rs 1,000 as service/processing/administrative charges and Rs 3000 which has already been refunded to the complainant) along with litigation costs of Rs 5,500.
Read more: School gets rap for retaining fee – The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/School-gets-rap-for-retaining-fee/articleshow/7007065.cms#ixzz16syjAPlI
Two-year jail for car dealer
For not complying with earlier orders, the District Consumer Forum awarded two-year imprisonment to two persons, including the proprietor of M/S TK Car Bazar, Sector 7, Chandigarh.
Complainant Swaran Singh, resident of Sector 23, alleged that he had purchased a second-hand maruti of model 2001, bearing number CH-03-E-8764, from M/S TK Car Bazar for Rs 1,10,000. Lalit Kundra of Sector 18 was projected to be the vehicle’s registered owner.
The complainant paid Rs 1,00,000, including 2% commission, to the respondent on December 4, 2008, and took possession of the car. He was to pay the remaining amount after receiving the car’s No Objection Certificate (NOC) in two weeks.
The respondents did not supply the NOC inspite of many requests and visit. A legal notice was sent to the respondents, but the proprietor sent neither the NOC nor any reply, Singh alleged.
On October 23, 2009, the forum directed the opposite parties to provide the NOC with all other papers. It also ordered to pay Rs 20,000 as compensation for harassment and Rs 5000 as cost of litigation.
Against the consumer forum order, TK Car Bazar approached State Commission, which was dismissed as withdrawn in July.
Meanwhile, for not complying with the earlier orders, the forum awarded two-year imprisonment to the proprietor and Lalit Kundra and a fine of Rs 10,000.
In default of payment of fine, each would suffer further imprisonment for a period of six months. The forum further issued Non-bailable warrants against both the respondents.
Read more: Two-year jail for car dealer – The Times of India
Consumer panel pulls up man for making ‘amputation of leg a source of income’
The Punjab Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has taken a stern note of the conduct of a resident of Ferozepur district who tried to make “the amputation of his leg a source of income”.
Dharam Singh, a resident of Basti Khalil Wali, claimed compensation for the amputation from three quarters by allegedly forging documents. He filed a case in the Ferozepur Consumer Forum against the orthopaedician at Civil Hospital, Ferozepur City, citing negligence and deficiency of service, and demanded compensation.
He also moved the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to claim compensation from the insurance company and the owner of a truck, which he claimed had hit him. In addition, he approached the Market Committee, Ferozepur Cantonment, with the claim that his leg was amputated while he was cutting green fodder in the machine and bagged Rs 30,000.
In the case filed with the consumer forum, Dharam demanded that he must be given compensation by Dr Jagbir Singh Sandhu, the orthopaedician, and the Punjab Health Systems Corporation. Here, he had claimed that he was injured after being hit by a rashly-driven tractor.
Dharam alleged that Dr Sandhu did not attend to him, on which he was “compelled to leave the civil hospital”. Later, his leg had to be amputated “due to the medical negligence”. In his reply,
Dr Sandhu told the court that Dharam’s medical history during his stay at the hospital “had been tampered with by the patient in connivance with some other people”. The words, “Consult Dr Sandhu” had been added later to implicate him in a case of medical negligence, said the doctor.
He added that he did not refer the patient to the charitable hospital at Amritsar, as alleged by him. Denying charges of medical negligence, Dr Sandhu said Dharam Singh was a chronic patient of diabetes and was also suffering from kidney dysfunction, which could have been the cause of blister formation on his leg, because of which the leg had to be eventually amputated.
The forum, however, awarded Dharam a compensation of Rs 2 lakh, to be paid by Dr Sandhu and the Punjab Health Systems Corporation, besides Rs 50,000 as reimbursement of his medical expenses and Rs 2,000 as costs.
Dr Sandhu appealed against the order in the Punjab Consumer Commission, bringing to its notice facts of Dharam Singh’s varying statements.
Commission President Justice S N Aggarwal and members Lt Col Darshan Singh and Amarpreet Sharma observed that Dharam Singh had been lying for getting compensation from three quarters, and the case called for imposition of heavy costs. But since Dharam Singh’s leg had been amputated, he deserved sympathy, said the commission, which did not impose any costs on him.
source: Indian Express
Insurance co told to pay for 26/7 loss due to Mumbai Floods
Five years after the 26/7 deluge, the consumer forum has ordered an insurance firm to pay compensation to an Andheri shop owner, who suffered major losses in the floods. The forum said the insurance firm repudiated the claim with “a mala fide intention and merely on a technical ground”. The insurance company will now pay the policy holder Rs 1.92 lakh together with an interest of 9% from March 2006 till the realisation of the entire amount and Rs 5,000 towards costs.
The policy holder, Nishat Enterprises, is a partnership firm that owns GKB Eyecare, an optical shop in Andheri (W). In the complaint filed by one of the partners, Ali Hussain Khan, the firm said it had taken an insurance policy from Oriental Insurance Company in respect of goods and property at the shop premises, valid from December 2004 to December 2005. On July 26, 2005, flood water entered the shop and all furniture and optical stock were totally destroyed.
The insurance company was intimated about the loss. When a surveyor visited the shop, the complainant said that the policy had wrongly mentioned the shop number as 18 when it was actually 10. However, the insurance company rejected the claim, saying that as per the survey report, the policy was taken for shop number 18, whereas the complainant’s shop was 10. Khan then filed a complaint with the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
In their defence, the insurance company contested that the alleged loss occurred at shop 10, whereas shop 18 was insured, and it was not liable for any loss occurred at shop number 10. The forum presided by J L Deshpande and members D S Bidnurkar and V G Joshi said that the firm had requested the insurance company to make the correction. The forum observed that there were only 12 shops and there was no shop 18.
The insurance firm also argued that the policy was taken for commercial purpose and so, the firm is not a consumer within the meaning of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The consumer said it had wrongly applied to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. “The firm had not taken the insurance policy to acquire and sell it…it was not the subject of its commercial activity or business.”
Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Insurance-co-told-to-pay-for-26/7-loss/articleshow/6267705.cms