No­table Cases from April

Consumer Voice - - In Thebfsinews&i -

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.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.