Consumer is King » Delay

Insurance company forced to pay compensation to consumer after not replying to a Right To Information Case

ashish — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 14:40:32 +0000

The Right To Information is a way of getting information from Government agencies that are not willing to provide the information when you would normally ask for it. Under the RTI Act, Government agencies are obliged to provide the required information unless there are specific security or personal privacy or commercial secrets involved. So what happens is that people who have business with a Government agency and are not getting the information from these agencies (something that can be very common) can use the RTI Act to get the required information; and if the information is not provided, a penalty is applied on the official concerned. Consider the case of this gentleman who needed to get information regarding his insurance policy and its premium payment (link to article):

MUMBAI: The Central Information Commissioner (CIC) has asked the United India Insurance Company Ltd (UIICL) to pay a compensation of Rs 5,000 to a citizen in a Right To Information case. Moreover, the commissioner has also imposed a penalty of Rs 22,000 on an official for dereliction of duty. In his order dated March 23, information commissioner A N Tiwari ordered UIICL to pay a compensation of Rs 5,000 to A M Attar—who had filed an RTI query—for the “detriment suffered by him’’ and also slapped a fine of Rs 22,000 on a senior divisional manager in Mumbai.
After a series of hearings, the commissioner said the senior divisional manager had got an RTI query on September 16, 2007. Though he had got the requisite information from the agent concerned on September 29, 2007, the information was forwarded to CPIO, regional office on Dec 27, 2007. Thus, there was a delay of 88 days on his part, the commissioner said.

Interior design forced to pay Rs 1 lakh penalty for not completing the work promised, forcing the hiring of another firm

ashish — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 14:28:40 +0000

When you are setting up a new shop or a new business with clients / consumers coming to visit the office or location, there is a need to ensure that the place is attractive and gives a good appearance. Getting the design to be attractive is very important, and it is equally important that the work to make the place attractive is done in time and as part of a integrated project. So, it is essential that whoever is charged with doing the interior design and re-structuring of an office or shop gets the work done in time, and to your satisfaction. So what happens when this work does not happen in time, or the firm doing this delays the work and finally gives up ? You will need to re-plan your schedule, and hire somebody else to get the work done, resulting in a lot of mental aggravation and agony; one client took this to the consumer forum and got compensation (link to article):

The Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum this week ordered an architecture and interior designing firm to pay Rs 1 lakh to a shop owner for not executing work on time. Bhasin said after that she engaged S R Choudhary, a consulting architect, to assess the quality and quantum of work executed by the firm as well as the losses it caused her. In her complaint, she sought compensation for the losses and also demanded that the interior designers should pay her the money she had to give the other architect firm to complete the work.

Gurdeep Komalan and Associates argued that the delay was caused among other things, by “Bhasin’s unclear mind and her constant interference’’. They also blamed the weather, including the 26/7 flood for it, and denied that the architect, Sunil Komalan, would stay away and not supervise the work. However, the forum presided by J L Deshpande said there was no evidence that the plan was ever changed at the insistence of Bhasin, which pushed back the deadline.

This also means that whenever you have an interaction with an external firm, make sure that all status and changes are properly reserved and recorded.

Police officer ordered to part-pay compensation for delay in filing a rape case

ashish — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:26:44 +0000

In India, the law dictates that when a man starts a physical (sexual) relationship with a woman after giving her the assumption that he will marry her, and then goes back on his word later, the man can be accused of a rape of the woman and convicted of the same crime. This also stems from the fact that a woman can face immense social pressures if it comes to light that she was having sexual relations before marriage. But this conflicts with the fact that a police officer in rural areas is subject to many pressures, and can also decide on the course of action, not only based on the facts of the case, but also on various extraneous pressures. However, it is also true that such wrongful actions of police officers can be challenged in court and restitution ordered from them. Consider the case of 2 police officers who were ordered to pay the compensation from their salaries for delaying the filing of a FIR (link to article):

MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court ordered compensation of Rs 1 lakh to a rape victim — to be paid from the salaries of two police officers, including a woman inspector, for delay in filing an FIR against the accused. Her father lodged a complaint with the Valliyoor police, but inspector K Kandasamy kept the complaint pending. It was only after 10 days that a woman inspector, A Maria Grace — after much dithering and making the father run from pillar to post — registered the FIR, charging the man under sections 417 of IPC (cheating) and 376 (rape).
Justice D Murugesan, before whom the petition came up for hearing, directed the DIG of police to initiate departmental action against the police officers and pay the compensation of Rs 1 lakh sought by the victim by recovering the money from the salaries of the two officers.

HDFC Bank fined for ‘extra charges’

ashish — Sat, 16 May 2009 07:14:13 +0000

Normally, dealing with banks is a hot and cold affair. When you have dealings with ATM’s and with over the counter in branches, things are fine normally fine. But when there is something that is out of the ordinary, that is when people have more complaints. This could be when there are some delays in credit card payments, or a person is on the edge when qualifying for a loan, or when there is some problem in making the loan repayments. In such cases, it is hard for bank customers to understand all the charges that a bank levies as penalties or extra charges, and this could lead to banks sometimes levying charges that are more than normal.
Consider the following example when a person had bought a motorcycle on loan from HDFC Bank, and was unable to pay some of the installments on time; he was unable to understand some of the charges levied by the bank and filed a case in the consumer forum against these charges (link to article):

Sending a clear message against unfair trade practices, UT consumer forum directed HDFC Bank to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 as litigation cost to Panchkula-resident Sohan Lal. The bank was also asked to issue a no-dues certificate (NDC) and overhaul its client’s account. Consumer forum’s decision came in the wake of allegations laid by Lal stating that the bank had asked him to pay exorbitant bouncing charges.
Holding that the bank adopted an unfair trade practice of charging exorbitant bouncing fees, the forum held, “The bank did not place any document to suggest if it was entitled to charge Rs 400 as bouncing charges.” The forum stated it was not clear that under what provision of law or agreement the bank was fleecing the complainant. “It is very unfortunate that banks are fleecing those who take petty loans for their basic needs,” it stated.

The problem described in this article is something that a number of people have faced when dealing with banks; some fight it out with complaints and a determined quest to ensure that they are not cheated, others don’t fight it out and accept whatever the bank ordains for them – in either case, it is still incumbent on consumers to not take any extra charges lying down.