Consumer Chanakya

INR 5,000/- Received To Mr Prakash From Bank Of India For His Unsuccessful ATM Withdrawal.

This is the case of Mr Prakash, who wanted to withdraw Rs 5,000/- from an ATM on the 27th of September 2022 at around 1:55 P.M., however the cash was not released from the ATM because to a technical issue; however, the amount from his bank of India account was deducted from his account.

Mr Prakash approached Consumer Chanakya without delay, Team Consumer Chanakya took his matter and immediately escalated it to his concerned bank, but after acquiring no positive response from them, Team Consumer Chanakya escalated the matter to the RBI, and after numerous attempts from both the bank and the RBI, we received the online resolution for Mr Prakash along with his refund of INR 5,000/-

Consumer Chanakya is grateful to Mr Prakash for giving us the opportunity to handle his complaint and for both sides’ cooperation.

As an organisation Consumer Chanakya, we work on consumer complaints and communication-related issues; however, we do not make lofty promises or commitments about the outcome or success of the matter because it varies from case to case. We succeed because we have a proven track record, an experienced legal team, and previous experience working on similar cases, all of which contribute to the resolution of the consumer matter.

***********************************HINDI*********************************

यह श्री प्रकाश का मामला है, जो 27 सितंबर 2022 को लगभग 1:55 बजे एटीएम से 5,000/- रुपये निकालना चाहते थे, हालांकि तकनीकी समस्या के कारण एटीएम से नकदी नहीं निकली; हालाँकि, उनके बैंक ऑफ़ इंडिया खाते से राशि उनके खाते से काट ली गई थी।

श्री प्रकाश ने बिना देर किए उपभोक्ता चाणक्य से संपर्क किया, टीम उपभोक्ता चाणक्य ने उनका मामला उठाया और तुरंत इसे अपने संबंधित बैंक में भेज दिया, लेकिन उनकी ओर से कोई सकारात्मक प्रतिक्रिया नहीं मिलने के बाद, टीम उपभोक्ता चाणक्य ने मामले को आरबीआई तक पहुँचाया, और दोनों बैंकों के कई प्रयासों के बाद और आरबीआई, हमें श्री प्रकाश के लिए उनके 5,000/- रुपये की वापसी के साथ ऑनलाइन समाधान प्राप्त हुआ।

उपभोक्ता चाणक्य श्री प्रकाश के आभारी हैं कि उन्होंने हमें उनकी शिकायत को संभालने का अवसर दिया और दोनों पक्षों के सहयोग के लिए।

एक उपभोक्ता चाणक्य संस्था के रूप में, हम उपभोक्ता शिकायतों और संचार संबंधी मुद्दों पर काम करते हैं; हालाँकि, हम मामले के परिणाम या सफलता के बारे में बड़े-बड़े वादे या प्रतिबद्धता नहीं करते हैं क्योंकि यह अलग-अलग मामलों में भिन्न होता है। हम सफल हैं क्योंकि हमारे पास एक सिद्ध ट्रैक रिकॉर्ड, एक अनुभवी कानूनी टीम और समान मामलों पर काम करने का पिछला अनुभव है, जो सभी उपभोक्ता मामले के समाधान में योगदान करते हैं।

Consumer Chanakya

है तो मुमकिन है

www.consumerchanakya.com

INR Refunded To Ms Asha From Nykaa Fashion For Her Aachho Embroidered Kurta And Pant With Dupatta.

This is the tale of Ms Asha, whose worry is that on January 13, 2023, she purchased a product (Aachho Embroidered Kurta And Pant With Dupatta) from the opposite party (Nyakka Fashion).

Ms Asha purchased the products and paid a total of INR 5,839 for them. When Ms Asha’s ordered merchandise arrived, she discovered that it did not meet her expectations. Ms Asha was disappointed and dissatisfied with the product’s quality, which she had not expected. The ordered goods bears no resemblance to the representation on the Nyakka Fashion site. The variation in the product’s authentication quality is both disappointing and unbecoming of Ms Asha.

Ms Asha is concerned that the goods is only accessible for replacement, and that the replacement can only change the size of the product, not the quality. However, the product(s) are meaningless to Ms Asha because none of the three are wearable, of the required quality, or worth the price.

So, Ms Asha approached Consumer Chanakya, Team Consumer Chanalya provisionally understood her situation and began working on it, and after several follow-ups via phone conversations and emails with Nykaa Fashion, we received the online resolution for Mr Asha along with her refundable money of INR 5,839/-.

Ms Asha’s trust in us is greatly appreciated, as is Nyakka Fashion’s cooperation.

************************************HINDI******************************************

यह सुश्री आशा की कहानी है, जिनकी चिंता यह है कि 13 जनवरी, 2023 को उन्होंने विपरीत पक्ष (न्याका फैशन) से एक उत्पाद (आछो कढ़ाई वाला कुर्ता और दुपट्टे के साथ पैंट) खरीदा

सुश्री आशा ने उत्पादों को खरीदा और उनके लिए कुल 5,839 रुपये का भुगतान किया। जब सुश्री आशा का ऑर्डर किया गया माल आया, तो उन्होंने पाया कि यह उनकी उम्मीदों पर खरा नहीं उतरा। सुश्री आशा उत्पाद की गुणवत्ता से निराश और असंतुष्ट थीं, जिसकी उन्हें उम्मीद नहीं थी। ऑर्डर किया गया सामान न्याका फैशन साइट पर प्रतिनिधित्व के लिए कोई समानता नहीं रखता है। उत्पाद की प्रमाणीकरण गुणवत्ता में भिन्नता सुश्री आशा के लिए निराशाजनक और अनुपयुक्त दोनों है।

सुश्री आशा चिंतित हैं कि सामान केवल प्रतिस्थापन के लिए सुलभ है, और यह कि प्रतिस्थापन केवल उत्पाद के आकार को बदल सकता है, गुणवत्ता को नहीं। हालांकि, सुश्री आशा के लिए उत्पाद अर्थहीन हैं क्योंकि तीनों में से कोई भी पहनने योग्य, आवश्यक गुणवत्ता या कीमत के लायक नहीं है।

इसलिए, सुश्री आशा ने कंज्यूमर चाणक्य से संपर्क किया, टीम कंज्यूमर चाणल्या ने अस्थायी रूप से उनकी स्थिति को समझा और उस पर काम करना शुरू कर दिया, और नायका फैशन के साथ फोन पर बातचीत और ईमेल के माध्यम से कई फॉलो-अप के बाद, हमें श्री आशा के लिए उनकी वापसी योग्य धनराशि के साथ ऑनलाइन संकल्प प्राप्त हुआ। INR 5,839 / -।

न्याका फैशन के सहयोग के रूप में सुश्री आशा का हम पर भरोसा बहुत सराहनीय है।

Consumer Chanakya

है तो मुमकिन है

www.consumerchanakya.com

INR 14,424/- Car Claim Received To Mr Yogendra From United India Insurance & Policy Bazaar.

This is the tale of Mr Yogendra, who was a victim of an accident and had his automobile damaged. Mr Yogendra’s car was insured by the United India Insurance Company Ltd, and the policy was purchased from Policy Bazaar, therefore Mr Yogendra sent the claim notification email to both parties on October 10, 2022.

Mr Yogendra received the clearance email, and he was told to pick up his automobile at the authorised location, and that the sum would be reimbursed by the insurance company soon.

So Mr Yogendra spent a total of INR 18,544/- for the repair, but the United India Insurance Company Ltd did not refund him.

Mr Yogendra patiently waited for the sum to be reimbursed, but when it was not, he sought to address the issue from his end, but all of his efforts were futile.

Then Mr Yogendra approached Consumer Chanakya, and after rigorous follow-ups with both sides (Policy Bazaar & United India Insurance Company Ltd), we secured the online resolution for Mr Yogendra along with his refund money of INR 14,424/-.

Consumer Chanakya appreciates Mr Yogendra’s confidence in us, as well as the collaboration of United India Insurance Company Ltd and insurance bazaar.

************************************HINDI************************************

यह श्री योगेंद्र की कहानी है, जो एक दुर्घटना का शिकार हुए और उनका वाहन क्षतिग्रस्त हो गया। श्री योगेंद्र की कार का बीमा यूनाइटेड इंडिया इंश्योरेंस कंपनी लिमिटेड द्वारा किया गया था, और पॉलिसी को पॉलिसी बाज़ार से खरीदा गया था, इसलिए श्री योगेंद्र ने 10 अक्टूबर, 2022 को दोनों पक्षों को दावा सूचना ईमेल भेजा।

श्री योगेंद्र को निकासी ईमेल प्राप्त हुआ, और उन्हें अधिकृत स्थान पर अपना वाहन लेने के लिए कहा गया, और कहा गया कि बीमा कंपनी द्वारा जल्द ही राशि की प्रतिपूर्ति की जाएगी।

इसलिए श्री योगेंद्र ने मरम्मत के लिए कुल 18,544/- रुपये खर्च किए, लेकिन यूनाइटेड इंडिया इंश्योरेंस कंपनी लिमिटेड ने उन्हें वापस नहीं किया।

श्री योगेंद्र ने धैर्यपूर्वक राशि की प्रतिपूर्ति की प्रतीक्षा की, लेकिन जब ऐसा नहीं हुआ, तो उन्होंने अपनी ओर से इस मुद्दे को हल करने की कोशिश की, लेकिन उनके सभी प्रयास व्यर्थ रहे।

फिर श्री योगेंद्र ने उपभोक्ता चाणक्य से संपर्क किया, और दोनों पक्षों (पॉलिसी बाज़ार और यूनाइटेड इंडिया इंश्योरेंस कंपनी लिमिटेड) के साथ कठोर अनुवर्ती कार्रवाई के बाद, हमने श्री योगेंद्र के लिए 14,424/- रुपये की वापसी राशि के साथ ऑनलाइन समाधान सुरक्षित कर लिया।

उपभोक्ता चाणक्य श्री योगेंद्र के हम पर विश्वास के साथ-साथ यूनाइटेड इंडिया इंश्योरेंस कंपनी लिमिटेड और बीमा बाजार के सहयोग की सराहना करते हैं।

Consumer Chanakya

है तो मुमकिन है

www.consumerchanakya.com

INR 4,500/- Refunded To Mr Shyam Along With The Loan NOC From WhiteHat Education Technology Pvt Ltd.

This is the story of Mr Shyam, who signed up for the Music Learner course from WhiteHat Education Technology Pvt Ltd in the month of 2022. Mr Shyam discontinued his course by paying the entire fee for all of the sessions that he had taken.

Mr Shyam is concerned since, despite cancelling the services, a sum of INR 4,500/- was automatically debited from his account in September 2022.

When Mr Shyam contacted the opposite company (WhiteHat Education Technology Pvt Ltd) about the debited amount, he was told that his account had been terminated and a NOC had been issued, but the INR 4,500/- that had been deducted from his account was never restored to him. Mr Shyam tried multiple times after that to contact WhiteHat Education Technology Pvt Ltd for a refund of INR 4,500/- but received no response or support from WhiteHat Education Technology Pvt Ltd.

When Mr Shyam realised that all his efforts were futile, he approached Consumer Chanakya. Team Consumer Chanakya took his matter and began working on it, and after several follow-ups with the WhiteHat Education Technology Pvt Ltd, we got the online resolution for Mr Shyam, which is He received his refund of INR 4,500/- from WhiteHat Education Technology Pvt Ltd along with the NOC of his loan account.

Consumer Chanakya appreciates Mr Shyam’s trust in us, as well as WhiteHat Education Technology Pvt Ltd’s assistance.

***************************************HINDI**********************************

यह श्री श्याम की कहानी है, जिन्होंने 2022 के महीने में व्हाइटहैट एजुकेशन टेक्नोलॉजी प्राइवेट लिमिटेड से म्यूजिक लर्नर कोर्स के लिए साइन अप किया था। श्री श्याम ने अपने द्वारा लिए गए सभी सत्रों के लिए पूरी फीस का भुगतान करके अपना कोर्स बंद कर दिया।

श्री श्याम चिंतित हैं, क्योंकि सेवाओं को रद्द करने के बावजूद, सितंबर 2022 में उनके खाते से 4,500/- रुपये की राशि स्वचालित रूप से डेबिट हो गई थी।

जब श्री श्याम ने डेबिट की गई राशि के बारे में विपरीत कंपनी (व्हाइटहैट एजुकेशन टेक्नोलॉजी प्राइवेट लिमिटेड) से संपर्क किया, तो उन्हें बताया गया कि उनका खाता समाप्त कर दिया गया था और एक एनओसी जारी कर दिया गया था, लेकिन उनके खाते से काटे गए INR 4,500/- को कभी भी वापस नहीं लिया गया था। उसे बहाल कर दिया। श्री श्याम ने उसके बाद कई बार व्हाइटहैट एजुकेशन टेक्नोलॉजी प्राइवेट लिमिटेड से INR 4,500/- की वापसी के लिए संपर्क करने की कोशिश की, लेकिन व्हाइटहैट एजुकेशन टेक्नोलॉजी प्राइवेट लिमिटेड से कोई प्रतिक्रिया या समर्थन नहीं मिला।

जब श्री श्याम को पता चला कि उनके सारे प्रयास व्यर्थ हैं, तो उन्होंने उपभोक्ता चाणक्य से संपर्क किया। टीम कंज्यूमर चाणक्य ने अपना मामला लिया और उस पर काम करना शुरू कर दिया, और व्हाइटहैट एजुकेशन टेक्नोलॉजी प्राइवेट लिमिटेड के साथ कई अनुवर्ती कार्रवाई के बाद, हमें श्री श्याम के लिए ऑनलाइन समाधान मिला, जिसे उन्होंने व्हाइटहैट एजुकेशन टेक्नोलॉजी से 4,500/- रुपये का रिफंड प्राप्त किया। प्राइवेट लिमिटेड अपने ऋण खाते की एनओसी के साथ।

उपभोक्ता चाणक्य हम पर श्री श्याम के भरोसे के साथ-साथ व्हाइटहैट एजुकेशन टेक्नोलॉजी प्राइवेट लिमिटेड की सहायता की सराहना करते हैं।

Consumer Chanakya

है तो मुमकिन है

www.consumerchanakya.com

INR 45,160/- Refunded to Mr Navdip From Make My Trip For His Flight Tickets.

INR 45,160/- Refunded to Mr Navdip From Make My Trip For His Flight Tickets.

This is the case of Mr Navdip, who paid INR 45,160 for two tickets to fly from Gold Coast, Australia, to India via Malaysia, Malaysia, and Make My Trip. However, because of the outbreak of the Pandemic, the government has issued travel advice.

Later, Mr Navdip asked that Make My Trip and Air Asia modify the dates of his tickets but Make My Trip and Air Asia responded that they did not have a date-changing capability.

Mr Navdip tried multiple times to contact Make My Trip and Air Asia, but they did not return his calls. After exhausting all conceivable options, Mr Navdip realised that nothing was occurring except that his efforts were futile. Only Mr Navdip then approached Consumer Chanakya.

Team Consumer Chanakya took his case and started working on it; after multiple follow-ups with the opposing parties, we eventually got the online resolution for Mr Navdip with his refund money from both Make My Trip, which is INR 45,160/-.

Consumer Chanakya appreciates Mr Navdip for trusting us and Make My Trip for his cooperation.

As an organisation Consumer Chanakya, work on consumer complaints and communication-related issues; however, we do not make lofty promises or commitments about the outcome or success of the matter because it varies from case to case. We succeed because we have a proven track record, an experienced legal team, and previous experience working on similar cases, all of which contribute to the resolution of the consumer matter.

*******************************************HINDI**********************************

यह श्री नवदीप का मामला है, जिन्होंने गोल्ड कोस्ट, ऑस्ट्रेलिया से मेक माय ट्रिप के माध्यम से मलसिया, मलेशिया होते हुए भारत के लिए दो टिकटों के लिए INR 45,160 का भुगतान किया। हालाँकि, पेंडैमिक के प्रकोप के कारण, सरकार ने यात्रा सलाह जारी की है।

बाद में, श्री नवदीप ने मेक माय ट्रिप और एयर एशिया से अपने टिकटों की तारीखों को संशोधित करने के लिए कहा, लेकिन मेक माई ट्रिप और एयर एशिया ने जवाब दिया कि उनके पास तारीख बदलने की क्षमता नहीं है।

श्री नवदीप ने मेक माय ट्रिप और एयर एशिया से संपर्क करने की कई बार कोशिश की, लेकिन उन्होंने उनके कॉल का जवाब नहीं दिया। सभी बोधगम्य विकल्पों को समाप्त करने के बाद, श्री नवदीप ने महसूस किया कि उनके प्रयासों के अलावा कुछ भी नहीं हो रहा था। केवल श्री नवदीप ने उपभोक्ता चाणक्य से संपर्क किया।

टीम कंज्यूमर चाणक्य ने अपना केस लिया और उस पर काम करना शुरू किया; विरोधी पक्षों के साथ कई बार फॉलो-अप करने के बाद, हमें अंततः श्री नवदीप के लिए मेक माय ट्रिप दोनों से उनकी रिफंड मनी के साथ ऑनलाइन समाधान मिला, जो कि INR 45,160/- है।

उपभोक्ता चाणक्य हम पर भरोसा करने के लिए श्री नवदीप और उनके सहयोग के लिए मेक माय ट्रिप की सराहना करते हैं।

Consumer Chanakya

है तो मुमकिन है

www.consumerchanakya.com

State Bank of India must refund the complainant Rs 5.88 lakh for negligence, according to a consumer court order.

The State Bank of India (SBI) was ordered to reimburse the client Rs5.88 lakh by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Wardha after determining that the bank was “negligent” in safeguarding the complainant’s funds.

Additionally, the court fined the bank Rs 50,000, of which Rs 30,000 would go for verbal and physical abuse and Rs 20,000 would go toward court fees.

“The bank utterly failed to follow the directives of the Reserve Bank of India” (RBI). The whole transaction pattern also shows that the dynamic check velocity system of the bank would have readily identified the anomalous high-volume denomination transaction. However, the detection mechanism was not installed.

By failing to provide such a method of verifying correct velocity, the bank has breached its duty of care, a bench made up of members PR Patil and Manjushri Khanake ruled.

The judges decided that the bank was in charge of confirming the legitimacy of the transactions. They argued that “it should have requested permission for the transfer of cash, but it lacked caution and acted recklessly, resulting in losses to the complaint.”

The plaintiff, a former member of the Indian Army from Ashti in Wardha, received a call from an unidentified cellphone number on March 18, 2021, asking him to recharge his mobile plan. He was instructed to instal remote software by the caller. After installing the programme, he was given an OTP, which he kept to himself, but in less than 10 minutes, Rs. 5 lakh and Rs. 88,000 were taken out of his account.

After receiving an SMS regarding a money deduction, he hurried to the SBI branch in Ashti, explained the situation, and asked that his account be blocked. He registered a FIR at the Ashti police station the following day.

Satish Lawhale, the complaint, asked the consumer court for a refund after getting no reaction from the bank or the police. He did this through attorney Mahendra Limaye.

In response to the notice, SBI said that it had been unjustly included in the case because the complainant and the fraudsters were the parties to the transactions, and that it had disclosed all information regarding the location of the money transfers. The bank placed the blame on the 61-year-old complainant, alleging that he installed the software that led to the transfer of OTP to the fraudsters and that he neglected to determine if the call was spam or phoney.

The complainant asserted that adding a beneficiary requires at least four hours and that the RBI has mandated that all clients have their KYC verified before money can be transferred. Even so, the bank disregarded security measures and transferred the entire sum in ten minutes.

Bengaluru court orders bar to pay Rs 10,000 in restitution after attorney overcharged for wine by Rs 90.

King Fish, The Restaurant and Bar was recently ordered by the Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to refund the Rs 90 excess charge and give the complaint compensation.

The restaurant and bar were also mandated by the court to reimburse the complainant for their legal costs within 60 days of receiving the ruling.

A bar and restaurant in Bengaluru has paid a steep price for charging an extra Rs 90 for a bottle of wine after a consumer court ordered it to provide the complaint Rs 10,000 in damages.

King Fish, The Restaurant and Bar was recently ordered by the Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to refund the Rs 90 excess charge and give the complaint compensation.

On February 13 of last year, Krishnaiah ST (49), an attorney residing in Amarjyothi Nagar in Vijayanagar, visited the restaurant and bar on Nagarbhavi Main Road. He placed an order for a bottle of Sidus wine and mushroom fries. Krishnaiah discovered that he had been charged incorrectly for Titl Wine-FL, which is Rs 90 more expensive than Sidus wine, when he received the bill for the same.

Krishnaiah, who showed the receipt from the bar, sent a legal notice and filed a petition with the consumer court. The bar refuted the claim in an affidavit.

The commission’s judgement, however, said that “if genuinely the complainant (Krishnaiah) has not ordered for Sidus wine totaling to Rs. 140 and he has ordered for Tilt Wine-FL amounting to Rs. 230, the opposition (King Fish) Before this Commission, the restaurant and bar would have produced any documentation. If they had wanted to prove that they had only provided Tilt Wine-FL worth Rs. 230 and not Sidus wine, they would have produced the CCTV footage kept at their restaurant or any other paperwork.

The burden of proving that the complainant ordered only Tilt Wine-FL and not Sidus wine, and that they had a right to charge Rs. 230 instead of Rs. 140 for the wine, passes to the opponent once the complainant has supplied all documentary evidence and led oral testimony. The opposition was unable to prove their claim. However, the plaintiff has amply demonstrated the wrongdoing and unfair business practises at their restaurant. Even if they haven’t given the customer the requested item, the opposition has provided one item at a pitiful price and issued the bill for a bigger amount. As a result, the complainant is entitled to the remedies requested in this complaint, according to the ruling.

The restaurant and bar were also mandated by the court to reimburse the complainant for their legal costs within 60 days of receiving the ruling.

After the AC in the cab failed to function for an eight-hour drive, the consumer forum orders Ola to pay a client 15,000 as compensation.

The Commission argued that the aggregator had a duty to fulfil its promises and that by failing to supply air conditioning for the complainant’s eight-hour trip, they had put him through hardship.

In a recent case, Vikas Bhusan v. Bhavish Aggarwal, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Bangalore (Urban) ordered the taxi aggregator app Ola to compensate the consumer for subpar service by paying him $15,000 [Vikas Bhusan v. Bhavish Aggarwal].

In its ruling, a bench under the direction of Commission President M. Shobha said,

“The OP must fulfil all consumer requests in accordance with their promises to do so. They caused the consumer who filed the complaint to endure annoyance and mental anguish throughout his trip by failing to provide AC service for the whole eight-hour duration of the trip. As a result, the OP engaged in both unfair trade practises and a lack of service “the prescribed order.

The plaintiff and his colleagues rented a cab in October 2021 through the Ola app, selecting the 80-kilometer or 8-hour trip option. He insisted that the 8-hour drive was marred by the AC’s non-operation.

The complainant observed that there was no procedure for resolving the issue while travelling and that cancellation would result in the loss of the booking fee.

The very next day, he contacted customer support and asked for a refund. However, the business claimed that there was no additional charge for AC according to the rate card, so it was unable to give a refund.

After the business granted a 100 refund without consulting the complainant, the problem was raised to senior management.

Afflicted, the complainant filed a service complaint with the National Consumer Helpline. He asked for 50,000 in damages and a 1,837 booking fee return plus interest.

Ola sent a response to the complaint’s legal notice. However, on September 7, 2022, the Commission rejected it because 45 days had passed.

Despite having been given adequate time, the Commission noted that the aggregator had not appeared to argue or submitted any written arguments.

After then, it was noted that Ola’s website and app make mention of the fact that cabs in the relevant category have an AC, more legroom, etc.

It concluded that Ola had acknowledged that the AC was not functioning even after receiving the full booking payment because Ola had returned 100 for a defect in service.

The Commission decided that Ola had failed in its obligation to deliver the services it had promised, and as a result, the complainant was entitled to compensation.

The Commission ordered Ola to repay the booking payment with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the complaint till realisation after observing the “extremely unfair behaviour” of the taxi aggregator.

Further, it ordered the company to reimburse the complaint for 10,000 in compensatory damages and 5,000 in court costs.

Jacket Replaced By REDTAPE To Mr Shahabuddin After Consumer Chanakya Intervention.

This is the tale of Mr Sahabuddin, who purchased three jackets from Red Tape, one of which was the mustard-coloured jacket, which cost INR 1,979 and he found that it was of lower quality than the other jackets purchased.

Mr Sahabuddin discovered that the product’s quality does not please him and does not justify the amount paid for it.

So, the very next day, Mr Sahabuddin contacted Red Tape for a replacement or refund, but they refused, alleging that the jacket was dry cleaned.

Mr Sahabuddin tried multiple times to get the money back, but all of his attempts were futile. Mr Sahabuddin then approached Consumer Chanakya, Team Consumer Chanakya took his case, and after multiple follow-ups from the Red Tape and our involvement, Mr Sahabuddin received his Jacket replaced.

Team Consumer Chanakya values Mr Sahabuddin’s confidence in us and Red Tape’s cooperation.

****************************************HINDI****************************************

यह मिस्टर साहबुद्दीन की कहानी है, जिन्होंने रेड टेप से तीन जैकेट खरीदीं, जिनमें से एक सरसों के रंग की जैकेट थी, जिसकी कीमत 1,979 रुपये थी और उन्होंने पाया कि खरीदी गई अन्य जैकेटों की तुलना में यह कम गुणवत्ता वाली थी।

श्री सहाबुद्दीन ने पाया कि उत्पाद की गुणवत्ता उन्हें खुश नहीं करती है और इसके लिए भुगतान की गई राशि को उचित नहीं ठहराती है।

इसलिए, अगले ही दिन, श्री सहाबुद्दीन ने एक प्रतिस्थापन या धनवापसी के लिए रेड टेप से संपर्क किया, लेकिन उन्होंने यह कहते हुए मना कर दिया कि जैकेट को ड्राईक्लीन किया गया था।

श्री साहबुद्दीन ने पैसे वापस पाने के लिए कई बार कोशिश की, लेकिन उनके सभी प्रयास व्यर्थ रहे। श्री साहबुद्दीन ने तब उपभोक्ता चाणक्य से संपर्क किया, टीम उपभोक्ता चाणक्य ने उनका मामला लिया, और लालफीताशाही और हमारी भागीदारी से कई अनुवर्ती कार्रवाई के बाद, श्री साहबुद्दीन ने अपना जैकेट बदलवा लिया।

टीम कंज्यूमर चाणक्य मिस्टर साहबुद्दीन के हम पर विश्वास और रेड टेप के सहयोग को महत्व देता है।

Consumer Chanakya

है तो मुमकिन है

www.consumerchanakya.com

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation is ordered to pay damages for a lack of service by the District Consumer Forum.

The Hyderabad District Consumer Commission – I ordered Telangana State Road Transport Corporation to reimburse the complainant for the money she spent to utilise a different bus service, as well as pay damages for the mental anguish she endured and court costs. The bench, which included Mrs. C. Lakshmi Prasanna, Mr. R Narayana Reddy, and Justice B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi as president, was hearing a complaint alleging unfair business practices and a lack of service from the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. (Opp. Party).

The opposing party offers bus services between states. The complainant and a coworker purchased AC bus tickets for a bus service operated by the adversary of ‘Garuda Plus’.

The complaint made these reservations assuming that the bus services wouldn’t be abruptly cancelled. On the day of the trip, however, the complaint got an SMS from the other party informing him that his bus to Chennai had been cancelled. But no justification was given for the same. The complainant was also instructed to submit an application with ticket credentials on the opposing party’s website in order to receive his reimbursement. The complaint also had to reserve a sleeping class seat on an alternative bus journey. The complainant further claimed that the process used by the opposing party to grant the refund was nothing more than an effort to profit from customers’ errors.

The opposing party argued that the bus needed to be taken to the manufacturing business right away for repairs because of a technical problem with the gear box. As stated, the bus was kept at the company after its scheduled departure time for repairs. As a result, a message informing all customers of the cancellation was issued. Because such was their standard procedure, they also claimed that it was unable to organise an alternative bus in light of the cancellation message.

The opposing party additionally argued that customers who purchase tickets at the counter must provide the ticket information therein in order to receive a refund. Similar steps must be followed on the website by customers who purchase tickets online.

On the basis of the information and material available, the district forum came up with the following questions for determination:

Was it possible for the complainant to demonstrate a lack of service and unfair business practises on the part of the adversary?

Whether the reliefs requested by the plaintiff in the complaint are appropriate?

So what relief, if any?

The district forum made the observation that there is not a shred of evidence to support question 1’s conclusion that the opposing party attempted to provide the passengers an alternative service after cancellation. The opposing party didn’t even provide any convincing proof to support their claim that the bus’s gear box had a malfunction.

The bench observed that in addition to the financial loss suffered by the complainant, the last-minute purchase of a ticket for a different bus must have inconvenienced him, and the other party’s cancellation must have caused him great stress and mental anguish.

When deciding issue #2, the forum noted that the opposing party could not claim a service defect under the pretext of a bus technical problem. The bench made a note that the opposition party’s lack of service was also highlighted.

In light of the foregoing, the bench ordered the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation to reimburse the complainant for the additional Rs. 530/- she spent for the services of an alternative bus. Additionally, they were ordered to pay Rs. 2000 for the emotional suffering they had caused as well as Rs. 1000 for court fees.