tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-84327643257629859182024-03-19T12:56:12.741-07:00Consumer And The LawConsumer And The Law is a unique initiative in India aimed to educate and empower consumers and provide legal support by posing queries before pertinent civic officials; representing affected groups and individuals at relevant fora; holding workshops and talks to help bridge differences; creating content by way of editorials and films to drive home the point and urge the authority to intervene and resolve; help provide targeted advocacy for niche causesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8432764325762985918.post-17647066600763327752021-05-31T21:58:00.000-07:002021-06-02T22:17:06.894-07:00Bengaluru teen misses trip to Nasa, gets Rs 1.6 lakh after suing airline<p>Bengaluru's Kevin Martin was to head to the United States on 10 August 2019. He was to board an IndiGo flight to Delhi to take off at 6.30 am and was excited since he would be visiting the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).</p><p>Sadly, that just didn't happen. The IndiGo ground staff reportedly declined to let Martin board, even though he possessed a valid ticket, stating that the flight was overbooked.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhv_rxsCTacChuw5_kj_cchdNqbDuuBKIH8besdO5VJi75bhI_ehnioT-_0BTeEIHW4ZsjyJy9-KRLblsc92vFcDtQeWg_4eXsJSKPBLoOwrqiOIq8qTvuksjm8lRLJ8M5zPF_nBZEMB9Gn/s1000/IndiGo+Aeroplane.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="606" data-original-width="1000" height="388" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhv_rxsCTacChuw5_kj_cchdNqbDuuBKIH8besdO5VJi75bhI_ehnioT-_0BTeEIHW4ZsjyJy9-KRLblsc92vFcDtQeWg_4eXsJSKPBLoOwrqiOIq8qTvuksjm8lRLJ8M5zPF_nBZEMB9Gn/w640-h388/IndiGo+Aeroplane.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Representational Image</i></td></tr></tbody></table><p>The Indigo staff offered him an alternative flight in the evening, but that would have meant the youth would have missed his connecting flight to the US.</p><p>Martin is the 2019 Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) topper in Karnataka and was second nationwide. He won the Technothlon competition at IIT-Guwahati and was to head to NASA for a trip. Then IndiGo threw a wrench into his happy plans.</p><p>With his NASA dream crushed, Martin was disappointed. Irate, he took up the matter with the Bangalore 1st Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on December 17, 2019, with a charge against Inter Globe Aviation Limited, Directors of IndiGo.</p><p>On 3 April 2021, the court ruled in that IndiGo needs to pay Kevin Martin Rs 1 lakh as compensation for dropping out on the journey and Rs 50,000 as costs for causing him mental pain by interrupting his plans. The airline was also required to pay Rs 10,000 towards his trial accounts and Rs 8,605 with interest towards a refund of his Delhi tickets.</p><p>Indigo in a statement said, "IndiGo is in receipt of an order issued by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Bengaluru, in relation to a matter filed by a customer concerning an overbooked ticket on flight 6E 2976 from Chennai to New Delhi on August 10, 2019. With due regard to the findings of the Hon’ble DCDRC, IndiGo believes that the matter was handled in full compliance with applicable guidelines concerning overbooking, including by offering appropriate compensation to the customer, which was declined by the customer. IndiGo will now follow due process in taking necessary steps in accordance with law on this matter."</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8432764325762985918.post-61182919657801922162021-04-09T22:44:00.008-07:002021-06-02T22:51:54.420-07:00Railway Officials Liable To Inform Commuters About Reasons For Delay Of Train<div>An order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Committee, Thrissur which was passed on 15 January 2021, but released in April 2021, held that three railway commuters were liable for compensation due to the loss suffered by them due to a six hour delay in their journey without prior information of the same by the Railway authorities or the provision of reaching their destination Payyanur to Wadakkanchery by any alternative way.</div><div><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhezY2zWWjCcIKlXuefUcYlihLnu9JJeWr2G-KCFPkFF3LSDlVx66AqxiBE9qBXBLQ24fYj7NWTQYBDB35i0eKUS7QNNptkXVcnV6OBcxuMecUB6jd4GkssHDRPN1jF-Bk-sbVxKZvrK5rA/s900/Railways.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="482" data-original-width="900" height="342" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhezY2zWWjCcIKlXuefUcYlihLnu9JJeWr2G-KCFPkFF3LSDlVx66AqxiBE9qBXBLQ24fYj7NWTQYBDB35i0eKUS7QNNptkXVcnV6OBcxuMecUB6jd4GkssHDRPN1jF-Bk-sbVxKZvrK5rA/w640-h342/Railways.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Representational Image</i></td></tr></tbody></table><div>The three member bench of the Committee comprising the President C.T. Sabu, Dr. K. Radhakrishnan Nair and Sreeja S. held the opposite parties viz. Wadakkanchery Railway Station Superintendent and Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Palakkad liable for such default on their part.</div><div><br /></div><div>The bench held that “it is the pious duty of the opposite parties to explain the exact reasons for the late running.”</div><div><br /></div><div>The Forum held the opposite parties to be liable to pay compensation to the complainants, and observed thus, “In the absence of any contra evidence on the part of opposite parties to establish that the late running was due to a genuine reason beyond the control of the Southern Railway officials or their subordinates, this Commission has no other alternative but to fix the blame on the opposite parties alone only.”</div><div><br /></div><div>The Consumer Forum held the opposite parties to be liable to compensation to the amount of Rs. 5,000, but did not order anything with respect to the costs. The Forum further disallowed the refund of the tickets since they were of the opinion that the compensation amount would cover the amount that could be claimed by the complainants in case of refund of tickets.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8432764325762985918.post-72139407542834924032021-03-16T22:33:00.006-07:002021-06-02T23:18:37.196-07:00Insurance firm directed to pay farmer’s widow ₹ 2.20 lakh<p>The Pune District Consumer Redressal Forum has directed the National Insurance Company to pay complainant Geeta Arun Dube, an amount of ₹ 2 lakh, together with interest thereon, at nine per cent pa; this is with effect from the date of filing of her complaint till realisation of the entire amount.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUZTE79BCMv8dh5x6oJ2dVUGvobTSemq3zWy8hg4j_8yc6LHG0ddn5UrASytkI1yYEEbziIjyfcAH5-NcZf-xSc3njuoppEJj5F6dPICMev_K2UIyE_8QPz9tZSWaT06idpTMOajvjvOf-/s700/Insurance.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="466" data-original-width="700" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUZTE79BCMv8dh5x6oJ2dVUGvobTSemq3zWy8hg4j_8yc6LHG0ddn5UrASytkI1yYEEbziIjyfcAH5-NcZf-xSc3njuoppEJj5F6dPICMev_K2UIyE_8QPz9tZSWaT06idpTMOajvjvOf-/w640-h426/Insurance.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Representational Image</i></td></tr></tbody></table><p>“Despite submission of relevant documents pertaining to the insurance claim by the complainant to the company, it has failed to settle the legitimate genuine claim of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant was required to suffer mental torture and was compelled to file present complaint before us. Hence, complainant is also entitled for Rs 20,000 towards compensation for mental agony and costs of litigation collectively,” the forum stated in its order.</p><p>Dube stated in her complaint that she is the wife of Arun Maruti Dube, who was a farmer and died on 24 January 2016, due to injuries sustained in a road accident. Reportedly, the deceased fell off his bicycle, and was admitted to hospital for treatment. Unfortunately, he died during treatment on the same day.</p><p>However, the insurance firm did not intimate the wife about the status of her claim. Later, she got the information through an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, that her genuine claim was repudiated.</p><p>Relevant claim papers produced on record by the complainant show that the cause of death of Arun Dube was due to heart attack. This insurance policy provides for compensation to farmers who sustain any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from accidents caused by external violent and visible means, resulting in specified contingencies such as death.</p><p>Hence, natural death is excluded from the scope of the policy.</p><p>The claim of complainant was repudiated on these grounds and the company submitted that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.</p><p>The forum held that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the deceased, who was the farmer owning agricultural land, accidentally fell down from a bicycle and died.</p><p>“The complainant is the widow of the deceased farmer and has complied with all the substantial formalities as required under the agreement and government resolutions. Therefore, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the insurance company is liable to satisfy the claim of the complainant,” the order stated.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8432764325762985918.post-78326560231087863492021-02-19T21:20:00.001-08:002021-06-02T22:31:29.232-07:00Consumer Forum raps builder, orders to pay ₹ 7 lakh compensation <p>The additional district consumer redressal forum has directed real estate developer and three of his associates to pay ₹ 7 lakh compensation to a consumer with 10 per cent interest within 45 days of the issuance of the order. The forum further stated that in case of noncompliance, the developer will have to pay the compensation at 12 per cent interest. It has also directed to pay an additional ₹ 50,000 as compensation along with ₹ 5,000 as expenses towards filing the complaint.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEltDA5epalQlNtArBZTiBeH-itQTkedSU2MmcE7s_UJ-q0LXwqDsmUVLJYfmXKykeg5LDGU2K07H-_xe0CCe4jDGqeHdhXwQzxR94pg8PI2w4TWIU26xuV25KBcx0aIEcQwV1IZ_9AiEW/s960/Society3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="639" data-original-width="960" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEltDA5epalQlNtArBZTiBeH-itQTkedSU2MmcE7s_UJ-q0LXwqDsmUVLJYfmXKykeg5LDGU2K07H-_xe0CCe4jDGqeHdhXwQzxR94pg8PI2w4TWIU26xuV25KBcx0aIEcQwV1IZ_9AiEW/w640-h426/Society3.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Representational Image</i></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Reportedly, Yerwada resident Prafulla Chandrakant Salunke filed a complaint with the consumer court against Messrs SS Developers and Builders, Pradeep Bhagwandas Shah, Sunit Nitin Mehta and GRP associates and Gravity International (Proprietor Prabhakar Menon) on 25 February 2019, seeking either custody of the flat he had booked in their project or compensation from the proprietors of the project.</p><p>According to the consumer court order, Messrs SS Developers and Builders is a real estate development company while the others are partners in the said project.</p><p>The complainant had booked a flat in Atharva Plaza project of the company in Kondhwe Dhawade in Survey No 423 and booked flat number 401 and 402 in the project at a total consideration of ₹ 22.65 lakh. He paid a booking amount of ₹ 1 lakh on 9 April 2011. He paid another ₹ 1 lakh through a cheque dated 6 November 2011, and on various occasions paid money wherein the total consideration was ₹ 7.20 lakh.</p><p>He requested the developers to register the said agreement and was assured by them that it would be done in the next few days. Despite repeated requests, the builders failed to execute the property registration and also did not complete the project. Salunke sent a legal notice to the developers dated 30 July 2018, but no action was taken by them. The complainant then moved the consumer forum seeking either refund of the advance paid or compensation in lieu of the payments made to the builder, the order stated.</p><p>The order further said 'Despite issuing notice, the developers failed to present themselves before the forum and an ex-parte order was passed in the case. From the complaint, it can be deduced that the complainant has paid ₹ 7 lakh to the builders. The papers prove that the promise behind seeking money from the complainant was not fulfilled.'</p><p>The forum maintained that it was of the view that the complainant deserves compensation on the ground of mental harassment and deficiency of the service and passed the order.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8432764325762985918.post-32791183436628444072021-01-31T21:32:00.000-08:002021-06-02T22:32:46.946-07:00Forum directs Tata Nano owner to pay 'parking charges' of Rs 91,000<p>A consumer court in Ahmedabad has directed a Tata Nano owner to pay Rs 90,000 as parking charges. The decision came after the owner did not take the delivery of the car for 910 days from the workshop. The court directed the owner, a lawyer by profession, to pay the workshop, the said sum. The case was filed by a complainant in the Gandhinagar District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission alleging that the Tata car dealer’s workshop did not repair the Tata Nano to her satisfaction.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGZrwVZwtHUAPFhrS0kIjt782Ow4dnupnmEzRtIDKFENy4zgzAe1gDtUTcPjKQx1UOfqHqHU3CGzUtB4JV8IIfXSnqZqu4DIRD4MlCSQPJ-_KJcRwS-Uu5-OUW3Cul4IBdN-xp7sFRu8qj/s700/Tata+Nano.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="491" data-original-width="700" height="448" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGZrwVZwtHUAPFhrS0kIjt782Ow4dnupnmEzRtIDKFENy4zgzAe1gDtUTcPjKQx1UOfqHqHU3CGzUtB4JV8IIfXSnqZqu4DIRD4MlCSQPJ-_KJcRwS-Uu5-OUW3Cul4IBdN-xp7sFRu8qj/w640-h448/Tata+Nano.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Representational Image</i></td></tr></tbody></table><p>Reportedly, the complainant dropped the Tata Nano for service on 7th June 2018. A week later, the Tata workshop called her to inform her that the vehicle is ready and she can pick it up. The total bill of servicing was Rs 9,900. When the complainant reached the workshop to pick up the Nano, she alleged that a few parts of the vehicle including the air-conditioning unit and the music system were damaged. Following an argument, the lawyer refused to take the delivery of the Nano and left the workshop. Later, the woman approached the consumer court for relief and sued the workshop for deficiency in service.</p><p>He sought the delivery of the Tata Nano car that she owns in a fully-repaired condition. As per the information by TOI, the woman left the vehicle with the workshop for 910 days, the time it took for the dispute to reach a conclusion by the Gandhinagar District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.</p><p>The dealer claimed that they informed the owner of the car through 58 emails. They even sent a notice to her, asking her to take the vehicle back from the dealership. The lawyer refused to comply with the directions and kept the car at the dealership until the case at the consumer forum was disposed off.</p><p>Stating their case in front of the Gandhinagar District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, the car workshop sought payment of Rs 91,000 as parking charges. They also argued that the woman did not take the repaired vehicle for a full 910 days.</p><p>According to the policies of the workshop, they charge Rs 100 per day as parking charges when the owner delays receiving a fully serviced and repaired vehicle. In 2020, the lawyer filed another complaint with the Gandhinagar District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and claimed that the car was not delivered to her despite her efforts to get the vehicle back. She claimed that she kept calling the workshop six times. She demanded the workshop to deliver her repaired car.</p><p>The court in its order said, the lawyer ought to have first paid the repairing charges. She cannot be considered a consumer for not paying the repair charges. The car is lying idle in an unworkable and worsening condition by lapse of time for more than two years. The dealer has, in fact, shown good faith and kindness, but it has been its misfortune. In absence of wherewithal of the complainant, opponent is made to wait for the result of this litigation.</p><p>The Gandhinagar District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission president D T Soni and member J P Joshi made these comments after levying a parking charge of Rs 91,000 and cost of Rs 3,500 as additional charges.</p>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com