Consumer Forum : Axis Bank asked to pay Rs 50 K or provide air ticket to Customer

 E T :NEW DELHI: 

A consumer forum here has asked Axis Bank to either pay Rs 50,000 as damages or provide an international flight ticket to one of its credit card holders who was a "victim" of its "fraudulent schemes". 

Under the bank's scheme, the complainant was promised a complimentary international flight ticket if he spent a minimum of Rs one lakh through his credit card, but despite spending more than the specified amount, the bank "arbitrarily" denied him the benefit, the New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum observed. 

The forum presided over by C K Chaturvedinoted in its order that the bank's conduct amounted to a "false promise made to a consumer to enhance his maximum purchase through credit card" and in this way "lakhs and lakhs (of consumers) have been victimised or preyed upon by opposite party (Axis Bank) fraudulently in open market". 

It held Axis Bank "guilty of deficiency in service/unfair trade practice and breach of contract through induction of fraudulent scheme to exploit the complainant arbitrarily" and directed the bank to "provide another flight offer in lieu of the one denied arbitrarily, failing which to pay compensation of Rs 40,000 to complainant and pay Rs 10,000 for litigation expenses". 

Delhi resident Har Bhagwan Wadhwa had alleged that he had received from Axis Bank the scheme letter according to which if he spent a minimum of Rs one lakh by his card, he was eligible for a complimentary flight ticket. 

He contended that he had spent more than the stipulated amount, his eligibility was confirmed by the bank and he had sent the filled up booking form for the ticket well in time, despite which Axis Bank did not honour its commitment. 

Axis Bank had denied his claim, saying he had not complied with the offer conditions, but the forum rejected the bank's stand.

Can’t charge flat buyer extra for parking slot’

Rebecca Samervel, TNN Sep 11, 2013, 06.51AM IST

MUMBAI: Emphasising that a flat buyer cannot be charged extra for a car parking space, a consumer forum has fined a developer that committed this "unfair trade practice".

The Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum last week directed Tata Housing Development Company to refund Rs 50,000 to Ghatkopar-based Suresh Mehta and pay him compensation of around Rs 20,000.

"Car parking area is the common area of the society. Therefore, the opponent (the developer) had no right to charge any amount for the sale or use of the parking space," observed the forum. It took into consideration a Supreme Court judgment which held that a developer can only sell a flat and has no right to sell a parking space.

In his complaint, filed with the consumer forum last year, Mehta had said that he purchased on June 30, 2010, an apartment and car parking space at Betegaon, Palghar, for Rs 17.4 lakh. He maintained that Rs 50,000 was taken from him for car parking and another Rs 50,000 as clubhouse development charges.

Mehta said he came across a judgment in August 2010 that held that a builder or developer cannot sell stilt or open parking as the space is part of society common area. The verdict also held that, once the occupation certificate is issued and the society formed, the developer ceases to have any title on the open space.

Through a letter dated December 23, 2010, Mehta demanded a refund from the developer. He was told in response that the car parking was not sold; the developer said he was issued a right to use the space. Aggrieved, Mehta filed a complaint with the forum. The developer repeated its stand in the forum.

The forum said the agreement showed that the total amount paid by Mehta included charges for the parking space. "The documents on record corroborate the contention of the complainant that the flat's price was Rs 16.44 lakh and that he was required to pay Rs 50,000 for car parking space." 

The forum held that this amounted to an unfair trade practice.

ஜி.இ., நிதி நிறுவன நிர்வாகம், 25 ஆயிரம் ரூபாய் நஷ்டஈடும், வழக்கு செலவாக, 2,000 ரூபாயும் தர வேண்டும்'

தினமலர் :ஜூலை 10,2013,23:29 IST

சென்னை: கிரெடிட் கார்டு நிலுவை தொகையை செலுத்திய பின்பும், வாடிக்கையாளரை பணம் கேட்டு மிரட்டிய, ஜி.இ., நிதி நிறுவனம், அவருக்கு, நஷ்டஈடு வழங்க, நுகர்வோர் கோர்ட் உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளது.

சென்னை, அம்பத்தூரை சேர்ந்த, பிலிக்ஸ் என்பவர், அமைந்தகரை, ஜி.இ., நிதி நிறுவன மேலாளருக்கு எதிராக, நுகர்வோர் கோர்ட்டில் தாக்கல் செய்த மனு: குறிப்பிட்ட நிதி நிறுவனத்தின், கிரெடிட் கார்டு வாடிக்கையாளரான நான், 2009, ஏப்ரலில், நிறுவனத்திற்கு செலுத்த வேண்டிய நிலுவையில், குறிப்பிட்ட தொகையை செலுத்த அனுமதி கோரினேன். 

இதற்கு ஏப்ரல், 13ம் தேதி ஒப்புதல் கடிதம் வழங்கினர். அதன்படி, 16ம் தேதி, ஒரே தவணையில் குறிப்பிட்ட தொகையை செலுத்தினேன். அதன்பின், ஒன்றரை ஆண்டு கழித்து, திடீரென, "கிரெடிட் கார்டு நிலுவை தொகை, 79 ஆயிரம் ரூபாயை செலுத்த வேண்டும்' என, தொலைபேசியில் மிரட்டினர். 

அதை தொடர்ந்து, நிலுவை தொகையை செலுத்தக் கோரி, நோட்டீஸ் அனுப்பினர்.

 விதிமுறைக்கு மாறாக செயல்பட்டு மிரட்டியதற்கு நஷ்டஈடாக, ஒரு லட்சம் ரூபாய் தர வேண்டும். இவ்வாறு மனுவில் தெரிவிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

மனுவை விசாரித்த, சென்னை (வடக்கு) மாவட்ட நுகர்வோர் கோர்ட் நீதிபதி மோகன்தாஸ், உறுப்பினர் தயாளன் ஆகியோர் பிறப்பித்துள்ள உத்தரவில், "சம்பந்தப்பட்ட நிதி நிறுவனம், முறையற்று செயல்பட்டுள்ளது 

விசாரணையில் உறுதியாகிறது. 

இதற்காக, பாதிக்கப்பட்ட மனுதாரருக்கு, ஜி.இ., நிதி நிறுவன நிர்வாகம், 25 ஆயிரம் ரூபாய் நஷ்டஈடும், வழக்கு செலவாக, 2,000 ரூபாயும் தர வேண்டும்' என, தெரிவிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

British Airways told to pay Rs.90,000 for losing luggage in transit from Delhi to Milan

PTI  New Delhi,Indiatoday:  April 15, 2013 | UPDATED 16:52 IST

British Airways has been asked to pay Rs.90,000 as compensation.

British Airways has been asked to pay Rs.90,000 as compensation to a passenger for losing his luggage in transit from Delhi to Milan.

The South West District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum noted that due to loss of baggage, the man had to purchase at huge cost articles of daily use for the duration of his and his wife's stay in Milan and is entitled to be compensated.

"We find that the bag was lost and complainant remained without the articles of their use which they had to purchase in a foreign country and thus complainant and his wife were compelled to spend a huge amount on the purchase of such articles.

"Moreover, complainant suffered inconvenience, harassment and mental agony due to loss of the bag for which he is entitled to be reasonably compensated, apart from the loss of his bag," the forum presided by Narendra Kumar said, directing the airline to pay Rs.50,000 to Delhi resident Balraj Taneja towards cost of articles he had to purchase in Milan and another Rs.40,000 as compensation and litigation cost.

Taneja, in his complaint, had said he had booked tickets to Milan from Delhi for his wife and himself.

When they had arrived at their destination, they found both their bags missing, he had said, adding that they had to purchase day-to-day usage articles at huge cost.

Nearly a month later, one of their bags was returned but in a damaged condition, while the other was never found, he had alleged and sought compensation for the loss.

The airline had opposed the claim for compensation saying their liability is governed by the Hague Protocol and Warsaw Convention on Air carriages and deficiency in service is not covered under these international laws.

The forum, however, rejected the airline's contention saying under the Consumer Protection Act there is no provision which limits or restricts their liability for deficiency in service.

Civil court not to have jurisdiction to entertain any suit in respect of any matter coming under RDDB ACt 1993

“34. Civil court not to have jurisdiction. – No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993)”.

POSTED BY ADVOCATEMMMOHAN ⋅ 

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 721 OF 2013

(From  order dated 26.11.2012 in Appeal No. 201/2012 of the

               State Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission,  Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow )

With

IA/1315/2013

(STAY)

Standard Chartered Bank

Through its Authorised Officer, Mr.Ajay Rana

10, Parliament Street, New Delhi                                … Petitioner

Versus

Virendra Rai, S/o Late Sh.Patu Rai

R/o 3/83, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar

P.N.Road, Tehsil & Dist. Lucknow                                      … Respondent

BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE J. M. MALIK , PRESIDING MEMBER

          HON’BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the petitioner            : Mr. Sanjeev Sagar,  Advocate

For the Respondent :  N E M O

PRONOUNCED ON  01.04.2013

                                                O R D E R

JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      The Civil Court or any other authority can not arrogate to itself  the right to make decisions or interfere with the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short ‘SARFAESI Act’).  Here lies the rub in Section 34 of SARFAESI Act  which reads as follows:-

 “34. Civil court not to have jurisdiction. – No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action  taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993)”.

2.      The State Commission, Lucknow, presided over by S/Sh. Rampal Singh, Presiding Member and Jugal Kishore, Member, passed the following order:-

“… The petitioner states that in order dated 24.07.2011 the Consumer Forum has ordered the petitioner bank that during the pendency of this case, the petitioner shall not take possession of property of complainant bearing No.Plot No.14, Gaurbhith,Fazulahganj, Lucknow. The Consumer Forum has also given next date as 25.08.2012 for further proceedings.

The petitioner has prayed before this Forum for setting aside of order dated 24.07.2012 by this Forum. Further, after the passing of the date fixed by the Consumer Forum, i.e. 25.08.2012, the petitioner has not informed us about the orders passed by the Consumer Forum.  After hearing the counsel for petitioner in detail, it is found that the appeal of the petitioner is merit-less and hence liable to be dismissed.

                                         ORDER

          Present appeal does not have any force and hence is dismissed. The order passed by the Consumer Forum dated 24.07.2011 in case No. 780/11 is hereby confirmed. The cost of this appeal shall be borne by the petitioner himself.

          The certified copy of the order be supplied accordingly to rules”.

3.      We  have  also  seen  the order  passed  by the District Forum-II, Lucknow, which has  observed as under :-

“…… The complainant on the other hand objected to objection of respondent and stated that this Forum has jurisdiction to hear the present case.  From their side an order passed by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, U.P. in appeal No.694/09 titled “Gaya Prasad Vs. GIC Housing Finance Limited”  and order dated 01.05.09 has been relied upon, we have gone through the said order from which it is clear that only the Civil Court has been barred from hearing and thus only civil court does not have jurisdiction to hear the present case and not the consumer fourm.  Into this order, the Hon’ble State Consumer Forum, U.P. has also mentioned Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, wherein it has been specifically stated that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Referring to this provision, the Hon’ble State Consumer Forum, U.P. has stated that the powers given to the Consumer Court are not in derogation of the provisions of SARFAESI Act.  Hon’ble State Consumer Forum, U.P. and its order in case titled “Kishori LalVs. ESI Corporation has stated clearly that the Consumer Forum has the jurisdiction to hear such cases and section 34 of the SARFAESI Act does not bar the said jurisdiction and in such circumstances, the objection of respondent bank does not have any force”.

4.      Counsel for the petitioner present.  Respondent has not appeared.  However,  his written submissions have been placed on record.  We have gone through the same.  Instead of touching the heart of the problem, the complainant has just skirted it.  He has countenanced the deficiency on the part of the Bank.  He has not spoken about the jurisdiction of this case.

5.      The learned counsel for the petitioner  vehemently argued that the Bank had cited before the State Commission, the order passed by this Bench, titled as “Bank of Baroda Vs. M/s. Geeta Foods”, decided on 08.11.2012 (RP No. 3499 of 2012).  The counsel for the petitioner alleges that this order was not discussed by the State Commission. He contended that the State Commission should have mustered the courage to mention about this order which otherwisetantamounts to Contempt of Court.

6.      We have already held that as per Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the District Forum or the State Commission have no power to interfere with the SARFAESI Act. The District Forum and State Commission are under the misconception that the Consumer Court is not a civil court.  In Patel Roadways Vs. Birla Yamaha Limited, 2000 (4) SCC 91, AIR 2000 SC 461, the Hon’ble Apex court has held :

“The contention that the use of the term ‘suit’ in Section 9 of the Carriers Act shows that the provision is applicable only to the cases filed in a civil Court  and does not  extend to proceedings before the National Commission which is a forum to decide complaints by Consumers following a summary procedure cannot be accepted. The term ‘suit’ is a generic term taking within its sweeps all proceedings, initiated by,  a party for realization of a right vested in him under law.  The meaning of the term ‘suit’ also depends on the context of its use which in turn, amongst other things, depends on the Act or the rule in which it is used.  No doubt the proceeding before a National Commission is ordinarily a summary proceeding and in an appropriate case where the Commission feels that the issues raised by the parties are too contentious to be decided in a summary proceeding it may refer the parties to a civil Court.  That does not mean that the proceeding before the Commission is to be decided ignoring the express statutory provisions of the Carriers Act (Section 8) in a proceeding in which a claim is made against a common carrier as defined in the said Act.  Accepting such a contention would defeat the object and purpose for which the Consumer Protection Act was enacted.  A proceeding before the National Commission comes within the term ‘suit’.

7.      In S.James Vincent Vs. Greater Cochin Development Authority, 1994 (1) CPJ 174 (NC), this Commission held that “a complaint filed by the complainant suppressing the fact that the matter was already sub judice in the Sub-Court, Ernakulam, was dismissed by the State Commission as the case was already sub judice before a Civil Court.  In appeal, the National Commission upheld the order of the State Commission holding that the complaint was gross abuse of the Consumer Protection Act”.                 

8.      In Oswal Fine Arts Vs. H.M.T., 1991 CPC 43: (1991) 1 CPJ 330: 1991 (1) CPR 386 (NC), this Commission upheld the important principle that when a matter is sub judice before the ordinary Civil Courts of the land, the Consumer Commission cannot and will not entertain any claim for compensation in respect of the same subject matter.

9.      It must  be borne in mind that under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, the Consumer Fora  have got limited jurisdiction.

10.    Again,  in Southern Railways Vs. M.Chidambaram, 2002 (1) CPJ 34: (2002) 1 CPJ 342 (NC),  it was held that since it was not disputed that untoward incident as mentioned in Section 124-A of the Act has occurred the proper forum of  adjudication would only be before the Railway Claim Tribunal under Section 15 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.  The consumer court had no jurisdiction in this respect.

11.    The consumer court cannot deal with the directions given to a Company declared ‘sick’ by BIFR.

12.    In Dinesh Kumar Vs. Railway Station Master, Raipur Station, IV (2004) CPJ 136 (Chhattisgarh), it was held that as Section 15 of the Railways Act, clearly bars jurisdiction of any other Court authority, consequently, remedy under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stands barred and was not available to the complainant.

13.    Last, but not the least, this Commission clearly, specifically and unequivocally  held  in Traxpo Trading Co. Vs. The Federal Bank  Ltd, I (2002) CPJ 31 (NC)  that under Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, jurisdiction of  this Commission has been barred, where the Bank has filed ‘suit for recovery’,  before DRT.

14.    Under these circumstances, the proceedings pending before the District Forum are hereby quashed and the revision petition is accepted.  The complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the State Commission and District Forum to follow the order passed by this Commission, time and again, without caring whatever their personal views are.

    ……..…………………………

(J. M. MALIK,J.)

                                                                                       PRESIDING MEMBER       

…..…..…………………………

(VINAY KUMAR)

                MEMBER

Air India penalised for unfair trade practice

Express news service : Chandigarh, Sun Nov 25 2012, 01:09 hrs

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has set aside an earlier judgement of the UT District Consumer Forum against Kingfisher Airlines in a case of unfair trade practice. Air India, however, has been penalised for causing mental agony and harassment to passenger after a delayed flight.

The complainant, Parminder Kwatra from Chandigarh, had booked a Kingfisher Airline flight to Bengaluru in November 2011. However, the flight was delayed by three hours and she was, instead, accommodated in an Air India flight that went via Delhi.

According to the complaint, in Delhi, she was moved to the another Air India flight to Bengaluru that was running late by two hours.

Kwatra alleged that when she reached Bengaluru, Air India officials informed he that her baggage was being transported by the next flight and she had to wait for another two hours for its arrival. She stated that despite her repeated requests to be accommodated in a lounge or a nearby hotel, the airline officials did not oblige.

In its written reply, officials at Kingfisher Airline submitted that she was informed of the flight delay much in advance and was transferred to another flight by Air India without any extra charges. Air India officials stated that all courtesies were extended to her for the duration of her wait, which were declined by her.

“One can well imagine the plight of a passenger, especially a lady, who reached Bengaluru Airport at about 9.15 pm and had to wait for her baggage which had not been brought in the same flight, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the officials of Air India,” observed the consumer commission.

The order by the commission stated that the district forum was wrong in not touching this aspect of the matter of the mental agony and harassment experienced by the complainant. Air India was, thus, directed to compensate Kwatra with Rs 10,000 and bear litigation costs of Rs 5,000.

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum :Railways to pay compensation

 Financial Express :AGENCIES: Nov 20, 2012 at 1608 hrs IST

New Delhi: The Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) has been asked by a consumer forum here to compensate a woman and her son for harassment they underwent because of relegation of their reservation status due to which they could not travel to Mumbai as planned.

The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ordered IRCTC to pay them Rs 5,000 and said it was "obvious" that someone else was accommodated ahead of them.

"It is obvious that line was jumped and in place of waiting list 1 and waiting list 2, some other persons were accommodated, leading to him being pushed down. This is certainly unfair treatment to travelling public, who believe in the system of booking introduced by opposite party (IRCTC).

"We hold the IRCTC responsible for this practice leading to harassment and not explaining its position in court. We direct it to pay Rs 5,000 to complainants together, inclusive of litigation charges," the bench headed by forum's President C K Chaturvedi said.

The forum's order came on a complaint by Delhi resident Rakesh Kumar Jain who had booked tickets on the Garib Rath Express for himself and his mother for travelling to Mumbai on January 30, 2010.

Reservation status at the time of booking had showed he had advanced to waiting list (WL) 34 and 35 from WL 117 and 118 and then it had moved up to WL 1 and 2, Jain had said.

At the last minute the status slid down to WL 46 and 47 without any explanation, he had alleged adding his correspondence to IRCTC did not produce any result.

Court asks Nokia India, Spice Retail to pay Rs 17K for selling faulty mobile

pardaphash; _{NEERAJ jOSHI :8TH NOV 2012} ;

New Delhi: Consumer forum in land mark judgement have directed Nokia India and Spice Retail to refund Rs 11,909 to a customer for selling him a defective mobile phone and its failure to repair it. 

The East District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum passed its order on an uncontested affidavit of Delhi resident Susham Lat Bhulania who said that Nokia service centre was unable to rectify the phone defects in time. 

In its order, court said, "Contents of the affidavit of complainant (Bhulania) are unrebutted, they cannot be ignored and have to be taken as true regarding defects stated therein and in light of the papers filed in evidence by complainant, it is sufficient for holding respondents guilty of deficiency of service.

"We allow this complaint. The respondents (Spice Retail and Nokia India) are directed jointly and severally to pay the cost of mobile handset which is Rs 11,909. Complainant had been harassed and deprived of the service of the phone which she had purchased for her use. We allow compensation of Rs 5,000 which includes litigation charges," the bench presided by N A Zaidi said.

The bench’s comprising member T Vijayan has directed Bhulania to "handover the defective handset with accessories on receiving the entire amount of cost and compensation."

Bhulania had alleged in her complaint that Nokia E-52 phone, she had bought from Spice Retail for Rs 11,909 had several defects including low charging which could not be cured despite change of charger. 

The forum passed ex-parte order as nobody appeared on behalf of Nokia India or Spice Retail despite serving of several notice.