Consumer Rights and Laws | Consumer Voice

Delhi high court asks railways to set up a mediation policy after deciding 30 years accident claim

by admin | Jun 22, 2018 | Consumer Rights and Laws

Delhi high court asks railways to set up a mediation policy after deciding 30 years accident claim

INTRODUCTION:

Recently, the Delhi High Court suggested forming a “Litigation Policy” by the Railways to address tortuous claims of compensation filed against it. The Court said that the whole purpose of granting compensation to the victim is defeated if the amount do not become available immediately. Due to lengthy court process and transferring of case from one court to another the justice is delayed prolonged.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In one of the recent cases, the plaintiff (victim) named Tilak Raj Singh was travelling from Meerut to Ludhiana which proved to be a very long one. An unfortunate incident occurred 30 years ago and since then the victim was running from pillar to post, seeking compensation, after having had his left leg amputated in a train accident.

After the accident had taken place, the victim had approached the District Court at Meerut seeking damages/compensation. However, his case was returned after 12 years for want of jurisdiction by the Meerut District Court. Thereafter, he approached the Railways Claims Tribunal, unfortunately the RCT also dismissed his Petition (case) stating that the incident had taken place after the enactment of the Railways Act, 1989 thus that the case doesn’t fall in the purview of the RCT and the same was to be tried by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and not by the RCT.
The suit was then shuttled back to the District Judge, Meerut who declined to accept the case saying that the RCT was not competent to transfer the case to it. Frustrated with the same, the victim then filed suit before the Delhi High Court on 1^st October, 2008 however, a learned Single Judge rejected his case stating the suit was barred by limitation means the time to file the case had expired. Thereafter, the victim challenged this in appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi which held that the period during which the suit remained pending before the Civil Judge, Meerut and RCT should be excluded and proceeded to trial.
Due to the increase in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, the suit was transferred to the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court where the victim was finally given a compensation of Rs. 6.6 lakhs which was challenged by the Centre before the Delhi High Court.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

After perusing the documents on records, the Court said that there is no doubt that the Railways are liable for breach of duty for not providing the standard of care required. The immediate first aid was not provided to the victim and it led to loss of blood and an injury which was life threatening, as is clear from the report of the Doctor who saw the victim at the Muzzafarnagar District Hospital.

The Court observed that as the incident took place prior to the enactment of the Railways Act, and the RCT has already rejected the petition of the victim for compensation, the determination of damages/compensation would be governed by the general law of torts and damages and not by the Railways Act. The Court further analysed the case and stated that the victim has been deprived of any compensation for over 30 years and thus enhanced the compensation amount to Rs. 9 lakhs along with simple interest @ 8% for the entire period from filing of the suit before the District Judge Meerut till date of decree.

CONCLUSION

While concluding, the Court stated that the journey of this litigation has shown that the victim was entangled for the want of jurisdiction both before the Civil Judge Meerut and the RCT. An organisation such as the Railways which is located across the length and breadth of the country should not delay cases of compensation in this manner. The whole purpose of granting compensation is defeated if the amount is not available to the victim immediately.

The Court suggested the Railways to adopt a `Litigation policy’ to deal with cases when tortuous claims for compensation are filed against them. In such cases, compulsory pre-litigation mediation can also be explored to bring about an early settlement. Such a step would reduce the costs for the Railways as also reduce the number of cases filed, and finally ensure timely and efficient payment of compensation. By adopting this practice, the victim will not suffer through the prolonged justice system.

ADVICE FROM VOICE:

Accident is one of the most common incidents which keep happening in Railways due to lack of caution and sometimes lack of negligence. The passengers should know about their rights as to where to claim for compensation etc. to avoid prolonged delay in getting justice. Had the victim in above case filed the claim in competent jurisdiction, there would not have been undue delay in seeking compensation.
Consumer VOICE HelpDesk gives guidance and advice to aggrieved consumer in consumer disputes of a wide range.

For details kindly click on the link: https://join.consumer-voice.org/legal/

The NEW CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL, 2018

by admin | Jun 15, 2018 | Consumer Rights and Laws

The New Consumer Protection Bill, 2018

SIX REASONS TO CHEER FOR IT!

The working of the consumer dispute redressal agencies under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 has served the purpose of the legislation very efficiently however, the disposal of cases has not been fast due to various constraints. Several shortcomings have been noticed while administering the various provisions of the said Act. The emergence of global supply chains, rise in international trade and the rapid development of e-commerce have led to new delivery systems for goods and services, and have provided new options and opportunities for consumer. Misleading advertisements, multi-level marketing, and e-commerce pose new challenges to consumer protection. In view of the changed circumstances, the Consumer Protection Bill was introduced in Parliament to replace the existing Act of 1986. Prof. Sri Ram Khanna, our Managing Editor, answers questions on this subject to Ankur Saha, Legal Head, Consumer VOICE.

Ankur Saha: When was the Consumer Protection Bill, 2018 was introduced in Parliament?

Prof Khanna: The Consumer Protection Bill, 2015 was introduced in parliament by Union Minister Ramvilas Paswan on 10 th August, 2015 after wide ranging consultations with civil society including Voluntary Consumer Organizations (VCOs) who welcomed the changes. It was referred to the standing Committee of parliament headed by J.C Divakar Reddy the same month. After significant deliberations the Standing Committee heard a number of experts and officials and identified lacunae which needed removal as well as made some new suggestions in its report submitted to parliament on 26 th April, 2016. The government has taken 20 months to process the changes and introduced the revised 2018 Bill in Parliament in January, 2018. The Consumers Protection Bill, 2018 was introduced in Lok Sabha as soon as parliament was convened for the Budget session in Jan 2018. It is the first Bill to be introduced in 2018 after it passed the legislative deliberations test in the Parliamentary Standing Committee which recommended improvements and plugging of gaps to make it more effective in 2016.

Ankur Saha: What is the history behind the amendments which keeps happening over the year?

Prof Khanna: The 1986 law has been amended thrice. It was first amended in 1991 after a Central Committee headed by West Bengal Left Front Minister Niren De suggested improvements. It was once again amended in 1993 to bring marginal improvements. The third amendment was made in 2002 by the NDA. The present amendment is a leap of faith as compared to the incremental changes made in the first three amendments.

Ankur Saha: According to you, are there any positive changes/amendments in the new Bill? If yes, please mention what they are.

Prof Khanna: The changes in the existing Act of 1986 are mostly positive. There are six positive features in the 2018 Bill which seeks to repeal and replace the 1986 Act lock stock and barrel. These include: First setting up of a new Executive Regulatory Authority called Central Consumers Protection Authority (CCPA) specialized to protect consumers. Second, it sets up a Mediation Cell in each consumer Court to mediate on consumer disputes. Thirdly, it widens the geographical jurisdiction of Consumer court to include the home or workplace of the complainant and substantially enhances pecuniary jurisdiction of consumer courts at all three levels. Fourth, it introduces the concept of Unfair terms of Contract which can be nullified by a Consumer Court. Fifth, it introduces punishment to jail and fine for misleading ads and injury from adulteration and spurious goods. Sixth, it introduces the concept of Product liability action widening the jurisdiction of the consumer courts.

Ankur Saha: Can you explain how setting up of a Central Consumer protection Authority and Mediation Centres in Consumer Courts will help the consumers in resolving their case? Also, what are the powers available to the Authorities to settle the dispute?

Prof Khanna: The Bill establishes a Consumer Protection Authority to investigate into consumer complaints, issue safety notices for goods and services, and pass orders for recall of goods and against misleading advertisements. It provides teeth to this Bill where the Authority can intervene to protect consumer’s interest in the market place. While the present law has provisions enabling the Central and State Governments to file cases in Consumer Courts, hardly any such cases have been filed in last three decades. This authority will be able to intervene in the market in a wide number of situations which have been elaborated in the BILL. It’s likely to emerge as a Regulatory Body for Consumers Protection.

A new chapter has been added to the Bill relating to setting up the mechanism for undertaking mediation in consumer disputes. The philosophy is that willing parties to a dispute should discuss the dispute with an empanelled Mediator to find a mutually acceptable solution to the dispute instead of long drawn litigation. Mediation Centres would be set up at the Central, State and District levels prescribed by respective state governments. This would enable settlement of disputes by a mediator upon reference by a consumer court. This is welcome as it will reduce litigation.

Ankur Saha: How practical is widening the jurisdiction of consumer courts and what would be the impact of this over the earlier precedents by courts?

Prof Khanna: The existing principle of geographical jurisdiction of a District consumer court is the place where the cause of action arose or where the branch of the opposite party is located. This point is settled by the Supreme Court which held in Sonic Surgical (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1560 OF 2004) that the case should be filed only in the jurisdiction of the branch office where the cause of action arose. The complaint cannot be filed in any branch of the opposite party. The proposed Section 34(1) raises the jurisdiction of District Consumer Court from existing Rs. 20 lacs to Rs. one crore. The proposed Section 34 (2) (d) adds the place where the complainant resides or personally works for gain as another place where the complaint can be filed. This welcome change completely upsets the ratio decendi in the Sonic Surgical case which is frequently being cited by Consumer Courts to oust geographic jurisdiction in cases where the cause of action arose at another place. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commissions has been enhanced from Rs. 20 lacs and it goes up from one crore to Rs 10 crores and that of the National Commission to over Rs 10 crores.

Ankur Saha: How far you think Unfair Terms of Contract will be helpful in reaching the right conclusion while deciding the case?

Prof Khanna: All contracts in India have been judged on the basis of jurisprudence based on The Indian Contract Act of 1872. For nearly 146 years Indian courts have upheld the validity of all terms of contracts if the contract was validly entered and have refused to judge the reasonableness of terms of contracts once parties have bound themselves to such contracts. The major exception being contracts in which minors were parties or the object of the contract was against public purpose or policy. The Bill classifies six contract terms as ‘unfair’. These cover terms such as

(i) payment of excessive security deposits;
(ii) disproportionate penalty for a breach;
(iii) refusal to accept early repayment of debts;
(iv) unilateral termination without reasonable cause;
(v) causing consumer detriment by assigning a contract to another party;
(vi) one which puts the consumer at a disadvantage.

The Parliamentary Standing committee had recommended that the Bill should lay down principles which widen its scope to determine whether contract term is unfair. This would allow terms of contracts other than the specified six to be classified as unfair. The change in the opening para of Section 2(46) does not appear to do justice to this recommendation and needs better language to widened it meaningfully. Only State Commissions and National Commission are being empowered to declare such terms of contracts as null and void. This will certainly reverse the current trend of contractual jurisprudence in B to C transactions and is to be welcomed by consumers. However, District Consumer Courts have not been empowered to decide on unfair terms of contract and this is a deficiency of the Bill.

Ankur Saha: How the new amendment of imposing fine and jail punishment for false and misleading ads, sale of spurious products and adulterated food would be beneficial?

Prof Khanna: Though the 1986 Act has adequate provisions for action against misleading ads which are deemed to be unfair trade practices, the act has been described as toothless as there was no penalty against such advertisers. The Bill has dropped the earlier proposal to penalize celebrities endorsing misleading ads. Under Section 89 two years jail and fine of Rs. 10 lacs is prescribed for misleading ads. The term of jail and fine are enhanced to five years and Rs. 50 lacs in case of a repeat offence. The Parliamentary Standing Committee had suggested a fine of Rs. 10 lakh or an imprisonment of two years or both, to deter such advertisements. It also suggested that these penalties will be applicable to the persons who endorse the products in the advertisements. The Bill does not have any such provision against the endorsing celebrity. Though the celebrities on their parts may be forced to do due diligence about the features of the product they are promoting.

Ankur Saha: What is product liability and don’t you think that burden of proving the defect on consumers is unreasonable?

Prof Khanna: A new chapter has been introduced in the Bill to enforce product liability against manufacturers and even make them recall the product from the entire market.

The 2015 Bill proposed that in order to enforce product liability, a claimant must establish four kinds of defects in the product, the injury caused from it, and that it belonged to the manufacturer. The claimant must also establish that the manufacturer had knowledge of such a defect. It was argued before the Standing Committee that the conditions to establish a product liability claim are unreasonable. The Parliamentary Standing Committee observed that this puts an undue burden on the consumer, since it would not be possible to claim liability if any one of the conditions are not met. It recommended that the provision be redrafted such that the consumer has to prove any one of the conditions instead of all six of them. The Committee also noted that it was not clear if deficiency in services is covered under the Bill. It recommended that the Bill should also specify conditions for establishing deficiency in services.

Ankur Saha: What is your opinion are the deficiencies in the new Bill of 2018 which can have adverse effect on consumers?

Prof Khanna: The above welcome changes are being overshadowed by the dark clouds of deleting existing due process sections of installing consumer court judges which is like hiding warm sunshine on a chilly winter morning. The new Bill has dropped the due process for appointments of consumer court judges which is based on a political consensus contained in CPA, 1986. It’s like a damner on an otherwise welcome bill with six positive additions to the Consumer Protection Bill 2018. The now missing listing of qualifications, criteria for selections, selection committee composition and terms of office of consumer court judges which are part of the existing law have been dropped and demoted to rule making as delegated legislation.

Rules are also law and are made by a Ministry without any open consultation process and notified by Government in the official Gazette. This dropping opens the door for changes that have the potential to introduce arbitrariness, favoritism and selection of unqualified persons close to the ruling dispensation. The unpleasant topping on this cake is the dark cloud dropping the formal role of High Court Chief Justices in mandatory consultation for appointment of judicial officers as heads of State Commissions and Chief Justice of India in appointment of president of National Commission. The existing provisions of Chief justices heading selection committees to pick consumer court judges have also been dropped. This is not welcome particularly because the smallest consumer court will handle cases up to value of Rs one crore in a case.

Alcohol bottles will start carrying ‘don’t drink & drive’ label

by admin | Jun 11, 2018 | Consumer Rights and Laws

Alcohol bottles will start carrying ‘don’t drink & drive’ label

All bottles containing alcoholic beverages will carry a statutory warning telling people that alcohol is harmful to health and asking them not to drink and drive. This regulation will come into force from 1 April 2019, the country’s food regulator Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has directed.

Citing Food Safety and Standards (Alcoholic Beverages Standards) Regulations, 2018, which will come into effect from 1 April 2019, FSSAI has in a recent order asserted that Regulation 5.12 stipulates the requirement of a statutory warning stating this: ‘Consumption of alcohol is injurious to health. Be safe — don’t drink and drive’. This is to be printed in English language on the label of alcoholic beverages. The size of this statutory warning will not be less than 3 mm.

This warning can also be printed in the local or regional language if any state desires to do so, the FSSAI has clarified, adding that “in such cases, there would be no requirement of also printing this warning in English.”

The food regulator has directed the food safety commissioners of all states and union territories to ensure that this directive is implemented uniformly, in coordination with excise departments of states.

Key Differences Between Mediation and Arbitration

by admin | Jun 6, 2018 | Consumer Rights and Laws

Key Differences Between Mediation and Arbitration

The difference between mediation and arbitration can be drawn clearly on the following grounds:

A process of conflict settlement wherein an independent third party, assist the parties involved in arriving at decision, agreeable to all, is known as mediation. Arbitrationis a private trial, wherein a rational third party analyse the dispute, hears the parties involved, gathers facts and pass on decision.
Mediation is collaborative, i.e. where two parties work together to arrive at a decision. Arbitrationis adversarial in nature.
The process of mediation is a bit informal while Arbitrationis a formal process, which is much like a court room proceeding.
In mediation, the third party plays the role of facilitator, so as to facilitate negotiation. On the contrary, the arbitrator plays the role of a judge to render a decision.
There can only be one mediator, in the mediation. As against this, multiple arbitrators or panel of arbitrator scan be there in arbitration.
In mediation, along with the joint meetings, the mediators hears both the parties in the private meeting. On the flip side, in arbitration, the arbitrator remains neutral, and no such private communication takes place. Thus the judgement is based on evidentiary hearings.
The parties concerned, have entire control on the mediation process and the outcome. Unlike, arbitration, where the arbitratorshave full control on the process and the outcome.
The outcome in mediation relies on the needs, rights and interest of the parties, whereas, the decision of arbitrationdepends on the facts and evidence presented before the arbitrator.
Mediation may or may not result in a solution, but arbitrationdefinitely finds a solution to the matter.
The mediator does not pass any kind of judgement rather makes settlement only with the approval of parties. As opposed arbitration, the decision taken by the arbitrator is final and binding upon the parties.
The mediation process is ended when the agreement is reached, or parties are deadlocked. The arbitration is concluded when the decision is handed down.

Consumer Interest Protected by National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

by admin | Jun 6, 2018 | Consumer Rights and Laws

Consumer Interest Protected by National Company Law Appellate Tribunal

Gone are those days when builders held all the power, and the buyer were supposed to beg for his or her own property’s possession. India is changing now and the attitude of the National Tribunals is also changing in favor of the buyers. This scenario was highlighted recently by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi when it ruled that the money owed to a buyer was a debt that needed to be paid by a builder.

The Beginning

The entire ordeal began for the buyer, Nikhil Mehta & Sons when it bought some property from AMR Infrastructure Ltd. and made a hefty down payment. The builder agreed to pay money to the buyer as per a committed “Return plan” and a MoU and an agreement were signed by both the parties with all the vital terms and conditions.

Agreement Violated (Return on Investment Stopped)

As you may have guessed, the builder neither gave possession to the buyer but also stopped making the agreed-upon payments to the buyer. The buyer, Nikhil Mehta, and Sons filed insolvency petition at the NCLT against the builder, AMR Infrastructure Limited for failing to comply with the terms of payment.

When the matter moved to the tribunal, the builder claimed that the money was taken as a loan from the buyer, which was another tactic to ensure that further payments should not be made to the buyer. Builders wanted to deprive Nikhil Mehta & Sons of special status by getting them listed with the case by other flat buyers in the High Court. This was admitted by the NCLT and decision given in favor of the builder. Aggrieved an appeal was filed in the NCLAT drawing the attention how Nikhil Mehta &Sons were different from other buyers.

The Decision

The Appellate Tribunal was convinced that the amount invested by the Appellants was not just a sale transaction but it would come under the meaning of Financial Debts under S-5(8) of IBC. A key reason for this decision was that the buyer had signed an MOU and an agreement in which the buyers were named as the investor.

This decision is iconic because it allows a person or buyer to take help of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) in case the builder/seller fails to honor the agreement and fails to provide assured returns within a stated time frame.

Warning for Consumers

This case also comes with a warning to consumers. When you are investing in a property that comes with assured returns, you should not just trust the word of the builder. Instead, you should sign an agreement and a MoU as they would act as evidence and your shield in case you need to file an insolvency petition in the future.

Packers and Movers are Service Providers : Some cases of Negligence

by admin | May 21, 2018 | Consumer Rights and Laws

Packers and Movers are Service Providers : Some cases of Negligence

When we want to move houses, we would like to ensure our precious items are packed well. We want this transition to be hassle-free. You look for the best professional packers and movers company.Yet, what if things don’t go as planned? What if your belongings get damaged due to the packing company’s negligence while shifting? Is there a remedy available under Consumer Protection Act to get compensated for damages done by the negligent company? This article will showcases some cases of negligence by Packers and Movers.

Most people looking for service providers end up choosing the ones that offer lesser price and have some good reviews (unfortunately, we live in times where even good reviews can be bought – this however is another story).As recipients of a service that is availed of for a fee, consumers are better off knowing their options if faced with any untoward incident. Firstly, it is important to note that any company that engages in shifting, moving, transporting and packing type of service is considered to be a service provider and can be challenged and fined for any deficiency of services under Consumer Protection Act. In India, the movers and packers sector has expanded and hundreds of new companies have entered the space. However, not many of them seem to be delivering what they promise; the number of complaints against them in the consumer forums has also been increasing steadily. The majority of these complaints state that the company did notdeliver what it committed, more so in regard to safe delivery of goods. The cases range from breakage of fragile material, not packing them right, or loss (stolen/lost) of items in transit. Nevertheless, instead of compensating for the damages, many companies have tried challenging the consumer’s complaint and their intent. Some large companies have gone to the extent of dragging a simple case of compensation for a few years, until their appeal got nullified by the National Commission.

The Whole Case

In 2011, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) was approached by Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd with an appeal to withhold judgements pronounced against them by district and state forums.

The complainant in the case was AlokChaturvedi, who had got his entire house shifted in 2009. Chaturvedi had safely got the entire stuff loaded in one truck and had put his own lock on the door of its container. However, he received his stuff in two different trucks, which meant that the lock had been broken and the goods unloaded and loaded while they were in transit. This aberration would not have bothered him much had the goods been in a proper condition, but most of his crockery, furniture and a few electronics products (costing about Rs 20,000) were damaged, while a few other items including clothes (costing about Rs 23,000) went missing. Chaturvedi informed the company about the damages and the lost items. He was asked by the company to retain all damaged products until their representative assessed them. The entire broken stuff remained scattered in the house for about three month, but the packers never turned up despite several reminders.

Aggrieved, Chaturvedi reached the insurance company to which the goods were insured for the transit period. The insurance company also asked him to retain the broken goods for them to assess. They also informed him that since the insurance was taken by Movers and Packers, and there was no contract with him, the claim-if any-would go to Movers and Packers. Hence, he would have to askfor reimbursement of the same from the transport company.The fact that the damages claim against his products would actually go to the company that did the damages in the first place infuriated Chaturvedi. He decided to file a formal complaint with the consumer forum.

In-between, Movers and Packers offered Rs 13,000 as compensation for the missing items and damages caused to other goods. That was not acceptable to Chaturvedi and he went ahead with his complaint with the district forum.The forum accepted the complaint and pronounced this order: “This complaint is allowed with a direction to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs 43,000 on account of broken and missing items. Ops are also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs 40, 000 as compensation for causing discomfort and Rs 5, 000 as costs of litigation.”

Movers and Packers filed an appeal against the district forum’s order and made these points: a) Agarwal Packers & Movers Pvt. Ltd is an artificial name and has to act through its managing director/ principal officer, and hence the service of summons was to be effected at the registered office of the company, and b) there is no deficiency on the partof Packers and Movers. In support, they cited earlierSupreme Court judgements.

In Ravneet Singh Bagga versus KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and Another (2000), the Supreme Court observed: “The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it.”

The State Commission did not agree with Movers and Packers’ appeal and dismissed it. Movers and Packers did not agree with the ruling and took up the matter with the National Commission.They observed the relevant findings of State Commission and stated: “…records show that Movers and Packers was duly served notice through registered post as there is acknowledgement receipt signed by their representative. Despite receiving summons, no one appeared before the forum. Records prove that summons sent out for appearance had been received by its representative Krishan Kumar. Also, the plea of ops that there was no employee with the name of Krishan Kumar is not supported by duly sworn affidavit of any responsible functionary of the company.

“Further, as the Company is situated in Chandigarh and the material booked was delivered at Chandigarh, so the district forum at Chandigarh had the territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon the dispute under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.” More so, referring to the Supreme Court judgement cited by the company, the apex court stated: “The rendering of deficient service has to be considered and decided in each case according to the facts of that case, for which no hard and fast rule can be laid down. Inefficiency, lack of due care, absence of bona fides, rashness, haste or omission and the like may be the factors to ascertain the deficiency in rendering the service.

“Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgement debtor to deny the decree holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These types of errors on thepart of the judicial forum only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law’s delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system.”

Thus, the National Commission confirmed and upheld the decisions of the district and state forums and directed Packers and Movers to compensate the complainant as per the judgements given.

Note: In April 2016, the Advertising Standards Council of India’s (ASCI) Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) upheld a complaint against Agarwal D2D Packers and Movers. In the advertisement, the company claimed that ’60 percent of the people in the country shift through them’. The claim was not substantiated when questioned by ASCI. Hence the ad was categorised as misleading.

Another Case to Note

Sharmilee Nielsen said she engaged the services of Leo Packers and Movers, Tiruvanmiyur, to transport goods to her new residence at Kottivakkam. While some of the goods were packed by Sharmilee herself, some others were packed by the company staff. The company delivered the goods on August 13, 2011, after charging Rs 78,313. For insurance coverage, the company charged Rs 30,000.

When the goods were delivered at her house in the presence of company personnel, most articles were found damaged beyond restoration. The list of the destroyed goods was provided to the packers company, following which an independent assessor inspected the goods and concluded that the goods were destroyed because of improper handling and jerks during road transit. The worth of damaged goods was assessed at Rs 1.44 lakh. Despite Sharmilee’s request, Leo Packers did not attend the inspection, nor did it settle the claim amount. She then moved the district consumer forum at south Chennai, seeking compensation for damages and deficiency in service.

Denying the arguments, Leo Packers said it had requested Sharmilee to allow special packing of all the goods in an airtight container. As she did not follow the company’s instruction for packing the goods, Leo Packers was not liable to pay damages.A bench of president B Ramalingam and members K Amala and T Paul Rajasekaran said that despite being informed, the company did not inspect the goods to settle the claim. Without assessment, it had offered to pay Rs 20,000 as compensation to Sharmilee; that was a meagre amount. The company did not prove that the goods were loosely packed, nor did it refute that it had transported all the goods. There was no evidence to disprove Sharmilee’s claims, the bench said. It directed the company to pay Rs 1.44 lakh along with 9 percent interest and Rs 5,000 as litigation cost.

Beware of Fakes and Frauds

In July 2016, Delhi Police busted a gang running a fake transport company impersonating a leading packers and movers firm, and arrested four persons who allegedly duped several customers on the pretext of providing low-cost services. The gang used to lure customers offering low rates and then withheld the items unless they paid an inflated bill in the name of various taxes.Around the same time, another gang was arrested from Meerut. This gang was primarily into robberies. They would pose as a mover and packers company, get the entire household/office stuff packed, and run away with a loaded truck.Consumers are advised to do a thorough check of the company’s legal existence and do a reference check before dealing with a new or an unknown entity.

« Older Entries

Next Entries »