Notable Cases from April
TDI Infrastructure fined
The National Commission has asked TDI Infrastructure to refund the entire amount paid by a plot buyer in Haryana along with 18 per cent annual interest for failing to hand over a 1,000 sq yard plot sold in 2006. The developer has also been asked to pay another Rs 50,000 to the consumer within 90 days.
Earlier, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had issued similar orders against builders including Unitech and Parsvnath, bringing relief to home buyers who are often left at the mercy of the powerful builders’ lobby.
Micromax asked to refund and pay fine
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum of Dehradun has ordered Micromax Informatics to refund Rs 6,500, the cost of the handset, to complainant Sachin Parmar. It also directed the company to pay to the complainant a fine of Rs 1,500 for causing mental harassment and Rs 5,000 against the litigation expenses within 30 days.
Parmar had purchased the phone from Uttarkashi in June 2014. However, within a few months, the display of the phone started encountering problems. Parmar went to an authorised service centre in Dehradun to get the phone repaired. However, according to the complaint, they could not repair the device.
After exhausting all options, including a legal notice to the company through his lawyer, Parmar moved the consumer court on 5 February 2015. In its order, the forum held the mobile company and the service centre guilty of giving deficient services.
State power company penalised
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-lll, Hyderabad, has slapped the State Power Distribution Company with a penalty of two lakh rupees to be paid as compensation to a customer for harassing, humiliating and torturing him. The forum has also directed the power distribution company to take administrative action against its assistant engineer for harassing the complainant and his family members.
Apart from directing the power discom to return Rs 15,597 to the 82-year-old complainant for taking money ‘unjustly by using unfair methods’, the district forum also censured the officials, noting that ‘had the officials in the hierarchy taken action on the complaint, this episode would not have happened’.
The case pertains to a complaint filed in 2010 by B Ramdass, a resident of Mirzalguda in Malkajgiri, against Kumar, the area divisional engineer and the discom. He approached the commission asking it to direct the discom to restore the electricity supply to his house, as he had paid his bills on time. The octogenarian claimed that Kumar was trying to harass Ramdass for personal unethical reasons.
Electricity to Ramdass’s house and other properties was cut off without any valid reason, he claimed, after which he had lodged a complaint at the Malkajgiri police station for harassment of his family members. When questioned by the police, the power discom officials cited meter tampering as the reason for disconnecting the power supply. However, on checking, the cops found that the meters were not tampered with.
Pepsico fined for spoilt Dew
The Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has ordered Pepsico India to pay a compensation of Rs 7,500 to a consumer who fell ill after consuming Mountain Dew, a product of the company. The complainant, Bansun, had purchased two bottles of the soft drink for Rs 75 in August last year. He felt some problem in his stomach on consuming it. After some time, he started vomiting and had stomach ache. He had to go to two different hospitals, both of which confirmed food poisoning due to the drink.