Consumer Education and Research Centre and its Cases solved and resolved by CERC (Part III)

Continued……

        Consumer Education and Research Center  

Legal Action:-

It is only when all negotiations and mediation in a consumer dispute fail, does CERS resort to litigation itself as the first litigant.

**************************************************************

The following are again some of the cases resolved in consumer courts

 on which press releases were issued during the period under review:

1.      CERS makes New India Assurance settle Rs. 80 Lakh Claim

In this case, a tactical move by a government-ownerd general

insurer to reject a valid claim of an amount as high as Rs. 80 lakh by making a convenient interpretation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy was blocked by CERS’s intervention. Doshion Ltd. received a contract for installation of a desalination plant in 2005. The company got a standard fire and special perils policy from New India Assurance Company Ltd before starting the work in 2006. The policy covered risk of Rs. 29.25 crore, including cover of Rs. 5 crore for construction material and other stocks, and premium paid was Rs. 8.08. Lakh.

    While work was in progress, the construction site was flooded with sea water due to a breach in a nearby embankment and the machinery and material were destroyed. The development was immediately reported to the Insurance Company. Damages were estimated to be around Rs. 80 lakh and Doshion put up a claim of Rs. 86.93 lakh before the insurer. However the claim was rejected saying that the site, where the damage occurred, was different from the place mentioned in the insurance policy.

Doshion approached CERS which filed a complaint before the Gujrat State Commission. The Commission ruled in favor of the complainant and ordered the insurance company to pay Rs. 80 lakh within 30 days with interest at 9%. Rs. 1 lakh as compensation for mental agony and Rs, 50,000/- towards, Litigation Cost.

***********************************************************

2. Agarwal Packers shells out compensation for damaged goods.

Rajesh Krishna Das availed the services of Agarwal Packers and Movers when shifted residence from Noida to Ahemadabad in 2010 paying Rs. 30,610. The goods were damaged during transit. Rajesh had been assured that the goods would be transferred using one truck all the way but he found out that they had been shifted to another truck midway which may have caused the damaged. Rajesh lodged a complaint with the movers seeking compensation. As his request was not heeded he approached CERS which filed a complaint with the consumer forum.

The opposite party argued that the goods damaged were not declared in the list at the time of booking and also that the amount claimed was not valid as it did not include the depreciation. However, CERS was able to justify its claim and the verdict came in favor of the complainant. It asked company to pay Rs. 31000/- with interest @9% along with Rs. 5000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 2000 towards litigation charges.

***********************************************************

3. School coughs up refund after CERS intervenes:

Dharmesh Shah had paid admission fees for both his sons, Fenil and Devras, amounting to Rs. 50,000 to the authorities of Somlalit School. But, before the academic session for 2010-11 began, Dharmesh Decided to withdraw his sons from the school and asked for fee refund. He followed up his request with legal notice but to no avail. Finally Dharmesh approached CERS which filed a case before consumer forum.

The School authorities argued that the fees were non-refundable and this had been specified at the time of admission. CERS highlighted that this was not mentioned on the fee receipts and hence the refund claim was valid. The school also claimed that since it was an educational institute it was not bound by the regular consumer and service provider relationship.

However, the Forum observed, citing the ruling of the National Commission and Supreme Court, that as the school charged fees it was bound to provide service. Further, CERS argued that the school had not been adversely affected as the vacant seats had been filled subsequently. The forum ruled in favour of the complainant asking the school to refund the fees with interest at 9%, Rs. 3000 for mental agony caused and Rs. 1000 towards litigation costs.

***********************************************************

4. Whirlpool India told to compensate harassed consumer

Kalpesh Parikh purchased an RO water purifier from Whirlpool India only to find out that it was defective within a few days of purchase. His repeated attempts to ask Whirlpool to repair it were in vain. Hence, Kalpesh approached CERS which lodged a complaint in the consumer forum. As per the settlement, Whirlpool India agreed to pay a token amount of Rs. 2000 along with replacement of damaged parts of the machine.

A technician from Whirlpool would visit the complainants house and do the necessary repairs. Even if there were major repairs involved, it would be Whirlpool’s responsibility to get the machine repaired and return it to the complainant within three weeks. Whirlpool also gave Kalpesh an extended warranty cover for the RO water purifier that would be considered valid from the day it was returned to the complainant in workable condition.

***********************************************************

5. New India Assurance compelled to pay deducted sum

This case highlights how insurance companies deny rightful claims by giving unsubstantial reasons. Asha Rungta was insured under good health policy for the period effective from 1 March 2006. The sum assured was Rs. 4 lakh. Asha was hospitalized for the treatment of lung disease for over a month in 2007. Medical Expenses came to Rs. 3,75,395/- and accordingly claim was submitted. The insurance company sanctioned only Rs. 2 lakh on the grounds that Ashs had been suffering from this disease since 2003 and at that time the sum assured was Rs. 2 lakh only. Hence, she was not entitled to the remaining claim amount.

After repeated pleas to settle the claim went unheard, CERS filed a complaint on her behalf before the consumer forum, Ahmedabad. As the insurance company did not produce any documents to support their deduction, the Forum passed the Verdict in her favour. Aggrieved, the insurance company approached the State Commission. The Commission observed that the insurance company had not produced any proof of pre-existing disease, such as doctor’s affidavit, and upheld the order passed by the Forum. It ordered the insurer to pay the complainant Rs. 1,75,395 and Rs. 1250 towards litigation costs.      

***********************************************************

To Be Continued……..

Consumer Education and Research Centre and its Cases solved and Resolved by CERC (Part II)

Continued…….

Consumer Education and Research Centre and its Cases solved and resolved by CERC

1.     Resort refunds membership fees of Rs. 2 lakh.

Caption Virendra Modi from Ahmedabad became a member of Snesh Resort Pvt. Ltd. On 20 August 1998 by paying a membership deposit of Rs. 2 lakh. According to the resort’s policy, the deposit was refundable after twelve and a half years which ended on 20 May 2011. Virendra wrote to the managing director of the company for refund as he did not intend to renew the membership. He was verbally promised that the amount would be refundable before Diwali. He waited in vain for almost a year. Distressed, Virendra contacted CERS which wrote to Snesh Resort. After rigiours follow-up by CERS, the resort finally refunded Rs. 50,000/- to Virendra on 8 November 2012 and signed an undertaking to refund the remainder in instalments. Virendra received the entire amount by 16 April 2013.

*********************************************************************

2.     Kingfisher made to refund fare for cancelled flight

Vijay Satapara booked two tickets for a journey from Mumbai to Dubai on Kingfisher. At the airport he and his companion waited for the boarding announcement but the flight was cancelled. The passengers were assured of a refund of fare within 15 days. But even after three weeks, he did not get the promised refund. Vijay called up the customer care department several times but received no response. He wrote the guest care of the airlines and received an acknowledgement saying, “…we have forwarded the details to the concerned team for refund… we will revert to you soon”. Several reminders to Kingfisher evoked no response. It was only after he complained to CERS that Kingfisher refunded the fare amount of Rs. 12,800 to Vijay.

*********************************************************************

3.     Builder provides promised parking space

      Janak Shiyani had a tough time getting a builder to allot parking space to him. When he booked an office space at Infinity Complex developed by Goyal builders, the brochures specifically claimed the availability of ample parking. But at the time of possession, Janak was told that all the parking space had been allotted and no slot was available for him. He realized that the builder was creating artificial shortage so that he could later sell the parking space to desperate members. When his attempts to convince the builder failed, a harried Janak wrote to CERS which contacted the builder. Constant follow-up and several reminders from organization made the builder give Janak the parking space in the office complex. A greatful Janak applauded CERS’ efforts to resolve his grievance.

*********************************************************************

 Some of the other successful complaints are given in brief below:

i)                  Kayam Z. Savani, got refund of Rs. 5.76 lakh from Jain International Residential School, Bangalore, against cancellation of admission of std. IX.

******************************************************************

ii)                Khusharan Fernandes, Goa, got a refund of Rs. 38,500 from L.G. Electronics India for a defective refrigerator.

******************************************************************

iii)             Talvinder Singh Samra, Ahmedabad, got a defective bike replaced by Royal Riders.

*****************************************************************

iv)             Anil Kumar Appu got a refund of Rs. 8.56 lakh from Godrej Properties Ltd. against cancellation of flat booking. He was unable to continue the installments due to loss of job, but Godrej had initially refused to refund the amount.

*****************************************************************

v)                Manish S. Malaviya of Dholka got Rs. 32,000 compensation from Dr. S.B. Vadodaria for medical negligence which led to a second operation.

******************************************************************

vi)             Aiyub Patel of Bombay got his defective LED TV worth Rs. 2.21 lakh replaced by Samsung.

*****************************************************************

vii)           A.B. Deshpande got a refund of Rs. 51,686, the advance amount paid for tour. He could not avail the services from Cox and Kings Ltd.

******************************************************************

Stay tuned for next cases solved and resolved by CERC

To Be Continued................

Consumer Education and Research Centre and its Cases solved and Resolved by CERC (Part I)

Consumer Education and Research Centre

Introduction

Consumer Education and Research Centre (CERC) facilitate and functions towards the development of the awareness of basic rights available for consumers by Educating and protecting them. It must be noted that the action arms of CERC for Consumer Protection are Consumer Education and Research Society (CERS) and Testing organization for research Chemicals and Health Hazards (TORCH) which carried out bulk of activities. CERC have their own complaint Redressal Forum where every consumer have a right to registered their complains and on the receipt of complaints from consumer CERC will try to approach at different forums where the jurisdiction of the complaint lies.  

*********************************************************************************

Complaint Redressal: -

During 2013-14, CERC received 718 Complaints from all over India, largely from Ahmadabad and other metropolitan cities. There were also complaints from small cities like Kollam (Kerala), Gondia (Maharashtra) and Kadi, Kheda and Kapadwanj (Gujrat). Out of 718 Complaints, CERC Processed 366 complaints during year, handled 485 complaints including 119 complaints brought forward from previous year. Of the 485 complaints, 155 were resolved through mediation/conciliation and 51 were taken up for legal action.

*********************************************************************************

Legal Action:-

It is only when all negotiations and mediation in a consumer dispute fail that CERS resorts to litigation with itself as the first litigant. The no. of cases decided between 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014 were as follows: in High Courts (1), National Commission (3), State Commission (24), Forum (49) making the total 77.

        

    The number of new cases filed during the same period was as follows: in the High Courts (1), National Commission (10), State Commission (10) and forum (14), making total new of 35 cases.

In-house Laboratories: - CERC’s Chemical and Electrical labs conducting fee-based testing for right choice. Some of the Products are Chips, Marie biscuits, ice-creams, chilli powder, mixer-grinders, electric kettles and hand blenders.

*********************************************************************************

Objective: -

Complaints handling is a major activity of CERS. The Society receives complaints from all over India mainly related to defective products and deficient services. These major categories of complaints are regarding Mediclaim, financial services and investments, telephones and mobile network, internet services, housing, electrical and electronic products and vehicles. Some complaints are also related to online shopping and cyber crimes which are on rise.

            The main objective of the Complainants Department is to bring about a just and fair solutions on to the complaints. The department resolves majority of the complaints by contacting the parties on the phone, through correspondence and by calling both the parties to the CERS Office. When mediation efforts fail, we resort to litigation. The complainant is advised to exhaust his or her own avenues before approaching us.

*********************************************************************************

Jurisdiction:-

            CERS mostly files complaints in Ahmedabad Consumer court. In case of complaints which are falling under the jurisdiction of other consumer courts, if our mediation efforts fail, CERS advise the complainants to approach the suitable consumer court.

*********************************************************************************

Some of the interesting complaints solved by mediation are described below:

1.       SBI’s NRE customer is victim of fraud

Kamlesh Mirani held a NRE savings account with State Bank of India (SBI). When his wife Rekha checked the statement for June 2012, she was shocked to note that transactions of Rs. 1.83 Lakh had been made in two days. Her husband had not made the transactions. She immediately informed the bank about the fraud but was told that a valid debit card had been used and the transaction slips had the signature of the account holder. Her arguments fail on deaf ears. SBI closed the matter from its end. Disheartened, Rekha approached a leading newspaper which carried her story. She even lodged the complaint with the police. But her problem was not solved. Finally she contacted CERS. After several meetings, SBI relented and agreed to refund the amount.

*****************************************************************************

2.       ICICI Bank reverses charge on ‘fake’ credit card

Tarun Kumar Gupta received a call from ICICI Bank asking him to clear his dues against his credit card. Tarun was taken a back since he had neither applied for credit card from ICICI Bank nor received it. He was shocked to find out that the application form and supporting documents were fake and the signature in the form had been forged. Tarun was assured that he was not liable to make a payment. But two years letter he started receiving calls for settlement of credit card bill amounting to Rs. 81,365/-. His explanation that the card was not his was not heeded. Harried, Tarun wrote to CERS which approached ICICI Bank and asked it to issue a no-dues certificate to Tarun and cancle the card immediately. ICICI agreed to do so much to Tarun’s relief.

*****************************************************************************

3.       WR finally refunds amount for cancelled ticket.  

Geeta Kapoor had booked a 2^nd AC railway ticket for Ahmedabad-Jaipur using her HDFC master credit card. A day before the journey, she cancelled her unconfirmed ticket. She waited for over a month but still didn’t receive the refund. Her complaint was not attended to either in Jaipur or by the claims and refunds department, Mumbai. Tired of this apathy, Geeta approached CERS which sent several reminders to the authorities. Finally, after about eight months, Geeta was asked to send a copy of the Credit Card. Within a month, the amount of Rs. 1060 was credited to her account.

******************************************************************************

Stay tuned for Next Case Laws attended and resolved by CERC.

To Be Continued………… 

Adjournments

Adjournments

************

Civil Suit Repeated adjournments are depreciable particularly when there is no just and sufficient cause. However, in the larger interest of justice the effect of such refusal or rejection of application for adjournment can also be born in mind. Reasonable costs can be imposed upon the party applying for adjournments and if such applications are repeated even exemplary costs be imposed before taking a drastic action to close the case. Defendants were disabled from the proceeding with the trial due to the absence of their counsel who had gone out of town. In such cases refusal to grant permission to cross-examine the witness on the ground that repeated applications were made for adjournments maybe harsh. Impugned order is set aside subject to the petitioners/ defendants paying costs in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-.

Suit for recovery of money –Adjournments- Petitioners already sought five adjournments in examining the witness-court should not normally grant adjournments after three opportunities have been given to the parties- Nevertheless subsequent adjournments are to be granted in very exceptional circumstances- court can always resort to granting exemplary costs to ensure adjournments are not sought on flimsy and untenable grounds.

Adjournments- Cap on adjournments to a party during the hearing of the suit provided in proviso of the to Order XVII Rule 1 CPC is not mandatory. In a suitable case, on a justifiable cause the court may grant more than three adjournments to a party for its evidence but ordinarily the cap should be maintained – ‘Justifiable Cause’ mean a cause which is not only ‘sufficient cause’ but a cause which makes the request for adjournment by a party beyond three adjournments unavoidable and sort of a compelling necessity- party to the suit is not at liberty to proceed with the trial at its leisure and pleasure and has no right to determine when the evidence would be let in by it or the matter should be heard.

Complaint against Lawyers is maintainable under Consumer Protection Act by Supreme Court:

Complaint against Lawyers is maintainable under Consumer Protection Act

by Supreme Court:

Date:- 08.07.2015

NEW DELHI: - The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a ruling of the apex Consumer Forum holding that services rendered by an advocate to his client in the course of litigation be covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

A Bench comprising Justices L S Panta and B Sudershan Reddy stayed the ruling of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which was challenged by a large number of Advocate bodies after lawyers raised a hue and cry over the prospect of being sued by client for deficient service.

The appeals were filed by Bar Council Indian Lawyers, Delhi High Court Bar Association and Bar Council of India. One of the Lawyers’ bodies represented by advocate Jasbir Malik argued that lawyers rendered legal assistance and not service to the clients. One Devendra Kumar Gandhi had filed a complaint before District Consumer Redressal Forum alleging deficiency of service against his lawyer M. Mathai. The district forum on June 1, 2000, held that lawyer liable and asked him to pay Rs. 3000/- as Compensation for mental agony and another Rs. 1,000/- as cost.

On the appeal filed by the lawyer, the state commission reversed the finding and said that lawyers were not liable to be proceeded against as the services rendered by them did not come within the ambit of consumer law.

However, the NCDRC set aside the state commission’s verdict and held that if there was deficiency in service rendered by lawyers; complaint under Consumer Protection Act was maintainable against them.

Collected and Circulated in the Interest of Society for enhancing legal awareness.

Blog Name: advocatejjlegalawareness.blogspot.in

Legal Awareness (Law Updates)

@@Important Rule Under Indian Motor Vehicle Act 1988 U/s 184@@

                             @@Important Rule Under Indian Motor Vehicle Act 1988 U/s 184@@

Date:- 05-07-2015

AS PER KARNATAKA'S HIGH COURT DECISION THERE IS RULE ROLLED OUT SATURDAY I.e. FROM 29.06.2015 WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS:-

1. That if the Minor who is under the age of 18 is found riding 2 wheeler or 4 wheeler

              will be punished for 1.6 months in Jail with there Parents/Guardians/Owner of the Vehicle.

2. That the License of the Parents/Guardians/Owner of the Vehicle will be cancelled.

3. The Vehicle which Minor was riding will be seized and the RC Book (Registration

    Certifications) will also be seized.

 4. A FIR will be Raised/Registered against Parents/Guardians/Owner of the Vehicle

               under Indian motor Vehicle Act Section 184 and other applicable Sections.

5. For Reference Read Bangalore Mirror News dated 29.06.2015.