Postal dept asked to pay Rs 3 lakh for opening joint PPF a/c
A consumer forum here has asked the postal department to pay Rs 3 lakh to a couple for opening their joint account under the Public Provident Fund Scheme.
Forum president Umesh Jhavalikar and member N D Kadam in their order stated that the Department of Posts had not apprised the complainants about the PPF regulations and permitted them to open a joint account, and since the last 13 years did not make any effort
to rectify the mistake.
more @ http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/postal-dept-asked-to-pay-rs-3-lakh-for-opening-joint-ppf-a-c-114040800501_1.html
Postal department to pay for misguiding widow
The postal department in Thane was instructed to pay a compensation of Rs 1.50 lakh to complainant, Cynthia Josephine D’souza by the Thane District Consumer Redressal Forum for misguiding her into continuing her joint fixed deposit account with them, even after
the death of her husband. Admitting the widow’s complaint, the forum ordered the Postal Department to pay the compensation within a period of 60 days, or else pay interest at 9 per cent till the amount is paid.
In her complaint filed in 2010, D’souza, a Kolbad resident, told the forum that post her retirement as a school teacher in 2002, she invested a sum of Rs 4.50 lakh jointly with her husband in a lucrative scheme launched by the Postal Department called Monthly Income Scheme (MIS). After a few months, her husband Ronald, too, had made another investment along with the complainant for Rs 1.50 lakh in the same scheme. The couple would get the monthly interest in their account on the two FDs.
more @ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/thane/Postal-department-to-pay-for-misguiding-widow/articleshow/33066326.cms
Consumer court slaps fine on postal department
A district consumer court in Arunachal has imposed a fine on the postal department for negligence of duty in delivering an important document to a customer.
The court in East Siang district has directed the post and telegraph department to pay Rs 20,000 as compensation to Ratul Paboh of Oyan, who could not attend the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) preliminary examination because the
department failed to deliver a letter on time.
The letter, which was posted at Itanagar on December 12, 2009, was delivered to Paboh on March 25, 2010, after four months, a source said here on Thursday. Paboh’s residence at Oyan is only 26 km from the post office at Pasighat.
more @ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/guwahati/Consumer-court-slaps-fine-on-postal-department/articleshow/24692829.cms
Recent Consumer Forum / Court Judgments Against Airlines
Air India to compensate Rs 50,000 for loss of bag after 16 years
The Maharashtra State Commission has asked Air India to compensate Mr Rajesh Lobo, who lost his bag on his visit to a relative in London in 1998. The court held “Considering that almost 16 years have passed, since the claim first arose, we award a global compensation of Rs 50,000, including interest and costs, to the complainant.”
Though, during the pendency of the appeal, New India Insurance Company, which had insured the complainant, paid Mr Lobo Rs 61,590, equivalent to $1,000, as compensation in October 2013, which couldn’t be paid initially due to failure of the Air India to issue a certificate confirming loss of baggage, which was already insured.
Read more @ http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-16-years-after-air-india-lost-flier-s-bag-airline-told-to-compensate-him-1974321
Denied refund of air fare, man to get Rs 1 lakh compensation
Relying on a national consumer commission order, a consumer forum has observed that when a customer has cancelled a ticket much prior to the scheduled flight date and claims a refund, a refusal to make the refund is strongly deprecated.
The forum directed Air France and ticketing agents Benzyl Tours & Travels and Rashmika Travels Consultants to pay a man from Chembur a refund of Rs 1.33 lakh after his infant grandson’s pneumonia forced him to cancel three Atlanta-Chennai return tickets booked
for his son and his family in 2007.
The complainant, V Vishwanathan, will also receive Rs 1 lakh in compensation.
more @ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Denied-refund-of-air-fare-man-to-get-Rs-1-lakh-compensation/articleshow/32872454.cms
Consumer Forum Slaps Fine of Rs. 47,988 on Yatra.com
The District Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum has slapped a fine of Rs. 47,988 on yatra.com of Bangalore for not reserving the tickets for a city based industrialist couple after issuing the tickets on a Mumbai-Bangalore flight.
Industrialist Ganesh Prabhu and his wife Sharanya of Krishnamurthipuram here had booked the tickets online through yatra.com to fly from Bangalore to Mumbai and back on May 4, 2013 and paid money too, getting the air ticket.
more @ http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-362554169.html
Airline to pay Rs. 10k for leaving passenger stranded
Leaving a passenger stranded at the airport without providing any accommodation to spend the night, district consumer disputes redressal forum, Chandigarh, directed Jet Airways limited (India) to pay 10,000 as compensation for unfair trade practices and
deficient services. Disposing of the plaint filed by Vikas Jain, a Sector-17 based businessman, the consumer forum has also directed the airlines to pay `5,000 as cost of litigation.
Jain had got a booking done with Jet Airways limited for travelling on July 22, 2013, from Chandigarh to Indore via Mumbai. He had to prepone the booking to June 21, 2013, and the booking was confirmed.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/chandigarh/airline-to-pay-rs-10k-for-leaving-passenger-stranded/article1-1194935.aspx
Shubham Modi vs. Zync Global & IndiaTimes Shopping (Case no. 436/2013, Jodhpur District Forum Decision)
A recent consumer forum decision by a Jodhpur district court, lays down another great principle as to jurisdiction in case of online e-commerce transactions. The complainant ‘Shumbham Modi‘ had purchased a tablet ZYNC Z 1000 from the INDIATIMES SHOPPING (RES-3) for a consideration of Rs. 9,330 vide invoice bill no. ZYNC/retail/2012-13/10087.
The payment was made through online payment from Karnatka Bank, Transaction Description 7/11/2012 paid at Jodhpur. Thereafter due to the dispute, the Complainant filed the Petition under Sec. 2 (1)(b)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 at Jodhpur only and not where the office of IndianTimes Shopping was situated at Delhi.
Basically Section 11 of Consumer protection Act, 1986 provides for jurisdiction of the District Forum as follows:
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed ”does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs.
(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
Now, as the consideration was paid to IndiaTimes Shopping at jodhpur through Karnatka Bank’s local branch, therefore the Cause of Action was assumed to have arisen within the Jurisdiction of Jodhpur consumer forum. And the complainant was able to convince the hon’ble members of the Forum that the jurisdiction in the matter lied with them only and complaint was accordingly accepted.
The judgment was delivered on 6th January 2014, despite the fact that respondents office was situated outside the city of Jodhpur. Copy of order can be downloaded here, whereby the court ordered refund of Rs 9330 (price of Tablet) and further sum of Rs 5,000 was ordered. And such action on behalf of individual consumer is commendable !
Complainant: Mr Shubham Modi, BBA LLB 4th Year, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
Rs 48000 Compensation Ordered against Hathway for damage caused to Laptop due to power surge
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CENTRAL MUMBAI DISTRICT.
Complaint Case No. CC/11/212
Mr.Ashok Pritamdas Sahani
Sion (East) , Mumbai-400 022 ………..Complainant
-Versus-
The Chief Executive Officer
Hathway Cable and Datacom Limited
Lower Parel(West), Mumbai 400013 …………Opp.Party
ORDER
Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President
1) The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he is subscriber of O.P’s broadband internet services having two accounts bearing No.97075 and 460055. He is using the service of the O.P. since last five years. Both the accounts are prepaid. The complainant is the owner a laptop of Sony Vaio make bearing model No.VGNNR240E. He was using the said laptop at his residence connected with O.Ps broadband internet service bearing account No.460055. On 5th June, 2011, there was heavy rain and lightening in the city of Mumbai. As a precautionary measure, power connection was removed from the laptop and laptop was connected to the modem of O.P. The modem connected with account No.460055 became completely disfunctional and the other modem with account No.97075
connected with PC had some problems. The laptop also stopped working from 5th June, 2011 as the cable wire was struck by lightening. The complainant lodged complaint for both the defects with the O.P. bearing complaint No.5718569 dated 7th June, 2011 and 5727367 dated 9th June, 2011. The representative of the O.P. Mr.Rajesh visited the complainant and informed that modem of account No.460055 had been completely destroyed due to lightening and promised to replace by new modem. The complainant showed his laptop to his engineer who told that mother board of his laptop is completely destroyed due to the surge of electricity from the modem into laptop. The defect in other internet account also was not rectified. The modem of account No.460055 was not replaced with new modem. The complainant was crippled without internet services. He was not able to access any email. Therefore, he sent legal notice dated 13th June, 2011 calling upon to rectify the internet line and replace the modem. The O.P. was also informed about the loss of laptop. The said notice was received by the O.P. On 15th June, 2011 representative of the O.P. rectified the problem of internet line of account No.97075 and on 22nd June, 2011 old modem of account No.460055 was replaced.
2) The laptop could not be repaired as the parts and mother board are not available in India. It was the duty of the O.P. to caution their clients to unplug the modem from the computer as surge of electricity can take place through their modem at the time of lightening. The complainant suffered loss to his laptop worth Rs.68,000/-. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint for the recovery of amount of Rs.68,000/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum. He has also claimed compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation.
3) The O.P. appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that as per contract it is necessary to refer the dispute to the Arbitration. Therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction. The complainant approached the O.P. in the year 2005-06 for broadband internet service connection and the internet connection was given to him. On 5th June, 2011, due to heavy rain and lightening the modem provided by the O.P. was damaged. The complainant lodged complaint on 7th June, 2011. After checking, it was found that modem was faulty. The complainant again lodged two complaints dated 8th June, 2011 and 9th June, 2011. The same was resolved on 9th June, 2011. The modem was replaced on 22nd June, 2011 free of cost. It was a regular practice of the O.P. to provide welcome letter to their new customer. The same is duly acknowledged by the customers. As per the said letter, all the customers are requested to disconnect the LAN cable from their PCs while not in use especially during rains and lightening. The cable modem does not suffer from any lapse. However, lightening can strike any cable. The O.P. is not aware if the complainant was using the laptop as alleged for internet services. The complainant is the customer since last five years of this O.P. He is well aware about the precautionary measures. The complaint of the complainant was resolved and one Mamta Sahani, mother of the complainant signed customer call report dated 15th June, 2011 and 22nd June, 2011 agreeing that the complaint has been resolved. The O.P. is sending precautionary message in the form of SMS and emails since the year-2003 to all the clients regularly. The complainant is the regular customer of the O.P. since the last five years and he has received the message of the O.P. It is submitted that in any event any cautious person would remove all electric wires connecting to any kind of electronic device in extreme weather especially that of heavy rains and lightening. Therefore, this O.P. is not liable to pay any kind of damage.
4) After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.
Points Findings
1) Whether there is deficiency in service ? Yes
2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed ? Partly Yes
3) What Order ? As per final order
REASONS
5) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- There is no dispute that the complainant is having two accounts of broadband internet services of the O.P. bearing No.97075 and 460055 since last five years. It is also not disputed that on 5th June, 2011 there was heavy rains and lightening in the city of Mumbai.
According to the O.P., on the complaint of the complainant representative of the O.P. visited the complainant and found that there was problem in modem and the modem was replaced. The O.P. has denied the damage to the laptop due to surge of electricity from the modem line into laptop. From the admission of the O.P. in the written statement and affidavit of evidence, it is clear that the LAN and modem was damaged due to heavy rains and lightening in the city. The modem was replaced by the O.P. According to the complainant, his laptop was damaged due to the surge of electricity from the modem LAN into the laptop. The evidence of the O.P.’s witness is not sure to show that laptop can not be damaged due to surge of electricity from the modem LAN. On the other hand, the witness of the complainant has specifically stated that the laptop of the complainant was damaged due to surge of electricity from the modem LAN. The witness examined by the O.P. and complainant are expert. The witness of the O.P. has not denied the possibility of damage to the laptop due to surge of electricity hrough the modem LAN and witness of the complainant has supported the averments of the complainant. Therefore, we accept that the Laptop was damaged due to surge of electricity though modem LAN. As discussed above, there is no dispute that there was heavy rain and lightening in the city on 5th June, 2011. The O.P. is the service provider of the internet services. The complainant is the regular prepaid customer. Therefore, it was necessary for the O.P. to take proper precaution so that electronic device of their customers should not damaged. Due to failure of the O.P. the complainant suffered damage to his laptop. Therefore, the O.P. is liable to compensate it to the complainant.
6) According to the O.P. there is no proper proof showing the damage of Rs.68,000/-. The O.P. has not disputed that the complainant is the regular customer since last five years. According to the complainant, he was using his laptop for internet connection. The laptop is old one. The complainant has not produced the bill of purchase of laptop. However, the laptop is old one therefore even though the complainant could not produce the bill still his claim can not be rejected in toto. According to the complainant, his laptop is worth Rs.68,000/-. Therefore, he has claimed compensation of Rs.68,000/-. The claim of the complainant is for the price of new laptop. Admittedly, the complainant was using it for more than five years. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the depreciation value of the laptop. Considering the use of five years, we think depreciation value of the laptop should be 50% i.e. Rs.34,000/-. The O.P. is liable to compensate it to the complainant. The complainant has requested the O.P. to compensate his loss but the O.P. failed. The complainant issued notice but the same was not replied by the O.P. Inspite of several requests, the O.P. failed to compensate the loss thereby complainant suffered from mental agony and harassment.
Hence, the O.P. is liable to pay compensation to the complainant for mental agony and harassment amounting to Rs.10,000/-. The complainant is also entitled for the cost of litigation. We think cost of Rs.5,000/- will suffice the purpose. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.
O R D E R
1) Complaint is partly allowed.
2) The O.P. is directed to pay Rs.34,000/- (Rs.Thirty Four Thousand Only) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. from 7th October, 2011 till realization.
3) The O.P. is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand Only) to the complainant as compensation towards mental agony and harassment.
4) The O.P. is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five Thousand Only) to the complainant towards the cost of this litigation.
5) The above order shall be complied with within a period of one month from today.
6) Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.
Pronounced
Dated 26th February, 2014
[HON’ABLE MR. B.S.WASEKAR]
PRESIDENT
[HON’ABLE MR. H.K.BHAISE]
MEMBER
Thane Consumer Court/Forum warns a Builder punitive action in execution prceedings
In 2007, Thane District Forum had ordered in a property dispute case that the respondents builder-developers Kuldeep Oswal and Gyanchand K Sancheti together should collect the pending Rs 6 lakh from the complainants, namely Smita Chandresh Sawla and Vibha Nilesh Shah (residents of Borivili), for the flats in Oswal Empire building here and get it registered, and also give the completion certificate of M-2 building to the complainants. Further, asking the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs 2,000 towards legal expenses.
The Forum then ordered that the respondents should individually make a payment of Rs 10,000 to complainants within two months of the order or else an additional sum of Rs 20,000 will be payable with interest at 9 percent. But as the respondents failed to comply with the orders of the Forum and evaded responding to the follow up by the complainants, they filed the present criminal complaint following which the court now decided to fine them with Rs 10,000 individually.
Taking a serious view of the non compliance of its earlier order, the Thane District Consumer Redressal Forum (TDCRF) invoked its judicial powers under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act and imposed a penalty of Rs 10,000 each on two builders here failing which they will have to undergo 3 months imprisonment, that the penalty be paid within flat three days else the duo will be imprisoned.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- …
- 6
- Next Page »