Consumer is king with vigil & proof

A Bhopal-based couple was scheduled to attend wedding reception of their daughter in Delhi last year. But they were aghast to hear an announcement at railway station that the train was running late by six hours. They had to miss one of most important events of their daughter's life for no fault of theirs.

Deciding not to give up and determined to get justice they moved consumer court against railways in consumer forum Bhopal.

A former governor of Meghalaya, who had booked an AIR China ticket from Bhopal last year, had to remain hungry for 11 hours after he boarded a flight just because he was served non-vegetarian food. He had opted for vegetarian while booking his ticket.

Both cases are still being heard in consumers' court. Later, he filed a complaint with the Consumer Forum of Bhopal to demand compensation. Many other people have knocked on doors of consumer forum after such harrowing experiences.

Talking exclusively to TOI, Rakesh Saksena, Judge MP State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and Akhilesh Pandya, Judge District Consumer Court said many consumers are still not aware of their rights.

Urging consumers not to forget to take bill or receipt for goods purchased by them, Rakesh Saksena said "The court always asks for evidence and a vigilant consumer can do needful by always taking bill."

Pandya said, "A consumer is anyone who is paying money to avail services in return and anybody who is not satisfied with services in return for money can come to the consumer court."

He said train passengers often miss to exercise their basic consumer right travelling in a reserved compartment. While travelling by reserved compartment, it is responsibility of the coach attendant to take care of their belongings because passenger has paid extra money to get compartment. It is also duty of the coach attendant not to allow any person without ticket In case a passenger doesn't get this service, he has a right to filed complaint with consumer forum."

"There are cases where people are fighting for justice for even popcorn worth Rs 60. A girl from Bhopal bought popcorn from a mall fell sick after eating the stuff. She found insects in packet. After filing a case in consumer court, she was paid Rs 10,000 as compensation," he said.

Grievances like poor quality food in railways, planes, bad hotel services, consumers can always present an affidavit of co-passenger. Grievances of bona fide consumers are always heard."

Read More

Tenants can take builder complaints to consumer forums

Tenants harassed by builders in a development project can approach the consumer forums.

More and more old and dilapidated buildings are going in for redevelopment. The builder makes money by selling flats to new buyers, but considers it onerous to provide accommodation to the existing tenants without charging money. Since free services are excluded from the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, would the tenants be entitled to file a consumer complaint for deficiency in service against a builder? 

Case Study: Jagdishbhai had a tailoring shop on tenancy basis in Moon House. The landlord sold the property to Surbhih Realtors, which decided to demolish the old building and construct a commercial property. Jagdishbhai was to be given shop No. 1, measuring 26.29 sq m in the new property. An agreement was executed, under which the builder agreed to bear expenses of registration of the sale deed. Possession of the shop was to be given in a month. In case of delay, builder agreed to pay Rs 10,000 a month. 

The builder failed to give possession of the shop and offered an alternative one on the rear side of the complex. Since it was not acceptable to Jagdishbhai, he filed a complaint before the district forum for a direction to the builder to hand over shop No. 1 and to pay Rs 10,000 per month for the delay. The builder contended that Jagdishbhai was not a consumer since the transaction did not involve any payment or consideration and argued it was a landlord-tenant dispute and not maintainable before the forum.

A dilapidated house in Mumbai's Ghatkopar with residents living in it. (TOI file photo by Anil Shinde) 

The district forum overruled these objections and directed the builder to hand over shop No. 1 and execute the sale deed. If this was not complied with within 30 days, the builder would also be liable to pay Rs 10,000 per month. 

Both parties appealed to the Gujarat state commission. While Jagdishbhai wanted the compensation enhanced, the builder wanted the order set aside. The commission concluded that Jagdishbahi was not a consumer as the transaction was in respect to transfer of tenancy rights to ownership property and as the service was not hired for consideration. It allowed the builder's appeal and set aside the forum order. 

Jagdishbhai filed a revision before the national commission, pointing out that the earlier landlord-tenant relationship had ceased to exist with the execution of the agreement for allotment of the shop on ownership basis. He also argued that consideration need not be in cash but could be in kind.

A dilapidated house in Mumbai's Lower Parel. (TOI file photo by Uma Kadam)

So, handing over the old tenanted premises would form consideration for allotment and possession of the shop in the redeveloped property. The commission allowed his revision, holding that he was a consumer, entitled to file a complaint against the builder for deficiency in service. 

Since 10 years had gone by, it directed that the builder should either give possession of the shop to Jagdishbhai, else allot another shop of the same area at a prominent place in the complex. The builder was also asked to pay Rs 15 lakh, so that it would fetch a monthly interest of Rs 10,000. A compensation of Rs 2 lakh for harassment was also awarded. 

Impact: Tenants harassed by builders in a development project can approach the consumer forums. 

(The author is a consumer activist and has won the government of India's national youth award for consumer protection. His e-mail address is jehangir.gai.articles@hotmail.com)

Source: Times of india

Read More

Amway MD: ARRESTED!

It has shattered image of Amway, in the eyes of all those consumers who believed in its trustworthiness for long. William S Pinckney, Managing Director and chief executive officer of Amway India, the direct selling company for various consumer products, arrested by the Andhra Pradesh police at Gurgaon. The police said charges had been filed against Pinckney under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. This was the second time Pinckney has been arrested in this country. The Kerala police arrested him last year on similar charges.

Amway India stated it was “aggrieved and shocked at the sudden and unwarranted act of detention”. “The case against which the action has been taken was filed in December 2013. The company had no prior information on the same. The allegations mentioned in the FIR (First Information Report) are frivolous and gives a misleading impression about our business,” it stated on Tuesday.

According to Amway, due to the lack of a legal framework for the direct selling sector, any case filed is being misinterpreted and booked under the 1978 law, which is meant to regulate financial schemes. The direct selling industry had been repeatedly seeking an amendment to the above law.

The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (Ficci) and the Indian Direct Selling Association (IDSA) have condemned the arrest.

“This move has been initiated by a consumer complaint and could have been easily addressed, since there was no criminality involved,” Ficci general secretary, Didar Singh, stated. (Courtesy: Business Standard)

Read More

Shop fined Rs 50 lakh for charging Rs 75 extra on drink

Charging a customer double for an energy drink has attracted a strong censure from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and a fine of Rs50 lakh for the vendor- Snack Bar, a unit of Saptagiri Restaurant. 

That October morning in 2009, a vendor at Chennai airport decided to make an extra Rs 75. Five years later, he may be poorer by Rs 50 lakh.

Charging a customer double for an energy drink has attracted a strong censure from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and a fine of Rs50 lakh for the vendor- Snack Bar, a unit of Saptagiri Restaurant.

NCDRC lambasted Snack Bar for having collected Rs150 for a can of Red Bull from Delhi resident D K Chopra, while the retail price was Rs75. It also came down heavily on airport authorities who it said were "working in cahoots" with stall owners to obtain higher rates for licences. The commission directed the stall owner also to pay Rs10,000 to Chopra.

Chopra bought the drink at the airport in October 2009. Unhappy over being charged almost double, he issued a legal notice, but the stall-owner did not reply. Chopra then moved the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (DCDRF) for a compensation of Rs2 lakh for "harassment and mental agony," and Rs11,000 as "travel and legal expenses." But the forum dismissed his complaint.

Chopra then filed a first appeal in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC). This too was dismissed on the grounds that he had failed to prove the MRP of the product. He submitted two receipts for purchasing the drinks, which were not signed by the owner.

He approached the NCDRC. Counsel for Snack Bar said they were entitled to collect twice the MRP and submitted a letter from the deputy general manager, commercial at Chennai international airport. The letter mentioned the price of "imported juice/energy drink" as Rs140.

Questioning the logic of its classification as a juice, it said "by no stretch of imagination Red Bull can be called an imported juice energy drink." "Such a price list can be created any time and has exiguous value," said the commission. It also said the letter did not have endorsement from the Airports Authority of India. "Even if it is assumed that AAI had given permission, they are not empowered to do so. AAI cannot disturb MRP rates," the commission said. Stating a snack joint was "like a tea/ beedi stall," it said a person could not be forced to pay the prices which have been prescribed for restaurants.

"The stall owner has no right to misappropriate public money. It should go back to the public." said the commission, adding the vendor might have been charging above the MRP before 2009 and would have earned "crores of rupees." It directed the vendor to deposit the fine in the consumer welfare fund under the ministry of consumer affairs.

Coutesy: TOI

Read More