National Experiences of Consumer Exploitation

8/11/2019 National Experiences of Consumer Exploitation

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/national-experiences-of-consumer-exploitation 1/9

CONSUMER GRIEVANCES : SUCCESS CASES

Kanta Bhakta, Mumbai V/s A Jeweller in Dadar, MumbaiOn March 18, 2011, Kanta Bhakta purchased a pair of bangles and a single bangle from a jeweller inDadar. They were declared to be of 22 carat gold purity and accordingly she was charged for gold of22 carat purity plus an additional amount as making charges. After the purchase, the bangles werekept in her locker. Both during Diwali 2010 and at the marriage of a relative, her daughter used thebangles. By coincidence, the complainant came across the X-ray gold testing facility of TanishqJewellers who were offering to check the purity of gold through an X-ray test which was non-destructive. Out of sheer curiosity, she had the bangles tested and to her utter disbelief, found outthat they were of less than 17 carat purity and not 22 carat, as had been represented at the time ofthe sale. Shaken by this discovery, she immediately visited the jeweller from whom she had boughtthe bangles along with the cash memo. He refused to accept her claim and her efforts to reason withhim were in vain. So she came to the CFBP who, with the help of its Legal Cell, drafted a complaint forher to file in the Consumer Court. A notice was sent to the jeweller giving him a last chance to settlethe matter before the Consumer Court was moved."The jeweller rushed to settle the matter with me and the complaint was resolved to my satisfaction."-Kanta Bhakta

Mohan Lalvani, Mumbai V/s Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd., AurangabadMohan Lalvani purchased a Skoda Superb during December 2009. He was not happy with itsperformance and the car also had frequent problems. A few months later, after slowing down to 5-10km/hr and then re-accelerating, he found that there was a major vibration before the car touched 20-30 km/hr. The Skoda Auto service executives failed to detect the cause of this vibration and resolvethe issue. Hence, he turned to the CFBP in March 2011."As per the dealership feedback, the vehicle is performing to standard without any vibration whenaccelerating. The vehicle was reported to the dealership on May 13, 2011 for the second free serviceand, as per the job order, there is no complaint of vehicle vibration recorded. The necessary work wascompleted accordingly and the Service Manager has conducted a joint test drive with the vehicle'sprofessional driver and it was found that it was performing normally without any concern so it wasdelivered to his satisfaction."- Srinivas Sudhir & Nitin Dixit, Executives - After Sales, Skoda Auto India

Kailash Vasdev, New Delhi V/s Bajaj Electricals Ltd., MumbaiKailash Vasdev purchased a 30 ltr. Morphy Richards Microwave Oven on September 12, 2010. DuringFebruary 2011, one of the safety locks on the door snapped. It was sent to the Delhi service centrefor repairs. After continuous follow up, the door was not replaced as the service centre said that it wasnot available and nothing could be done until the part was received from the company. Frustrated bythis casual approach to the resolution of his grievance, he complained to the CFBP during April 2011."The damaged Microwave Oven has been replaced by the company. This would not have happenedwithout your intervention. Thank you for your response and interest taken in the matter."- Kailesh Vasudev

Bhawesh Chandra Jha, Orissa V/s Royal Images Catalogue Co. Pvt. Ltd., ChennaiBhavesh Chandra Jha ordered some goods from Royal Images Catalogue Co. He paid for themthrough his credit card. However, the company had the goods inadvertently delivered to a wrongaddress. When he brought this to their attention, they accepted that an error had been made but didnot refund/re-credit his payment. He persistently followed up with them to get his money back but didnot succeed, despite his best efforts. Left with no alternative, he brought his case to the CFBP onMarch 16, 2011."Thanks for your early response. The company has responded after you wrote to them and taken thenecessary action. The money has since been refunded to my bank account."- Bhawesh Chandra Jha



Jyoti Mehta, Waidhan, M.P. V/s Bajaj Electricals Ltd., MumbaiJyoti Mehta got a Bajaj Storage Geyser (25 ltr.) from Rajesh Electronics, an authorised dealer, onDecember 25, 2009. Installed on January 17, 2010, it emitted a peculiar sound while heating. Hercomplaint was not responded to. After winter ended in February 2010, it was used again only inOctober 2010. It gave an electric shock and the heating coil was damaged. Sent for repair onDecember 16, 2010, it came back in the same state 10 days later. So she wrote to the CFBP on

December 31, 2010."Bajaj deputed their service engineer who repaired the geyser. I sincerely thank you for pressurisingthe company for early repair of the defective component. The company has done their job to mysatisfaction."- Jyoti Mehta

Tejpal Rohra, Mumbai V/s ICICI Bank, MumbaiTejpal Rohra drew two cheques for Rs. 50,000 each on his ICICI Bank Savings A/c on January 18,2010. The money was to be transferred to a Fixed Deposit A/c but, after some time, he found that aFixed Deposit had not been made. On contacting the bank, he was shocked to learn that the amounthad instead been transferred to ICICI Prudential Life Insurance without his consent or any intimation.Several complaints only yielded false assurances and so he approached the CFBP in November 2010."I personally want to thank the CFBP staff for their kind support in getting my invested amount backfrom ICICI Prudential Life Insurance due to a fake Investment Policy. Also, a very special thanks tothe CFBP Legal Cell."- Tejpal Rohra

Pravinchandra Ved, Mumbai V/s State Bank of India, MumbaiMr. Ved deposited a high value cheque of Rs. 3,50,280.00 in his SBI Vile Parle(West) Branch Savings Bank A/c on October 8, 2009.He was surprised to find that ithad not been cleared on October 10. The Bank said that it had been sent for clearingon October 9 but a technical problem in the Centralised Clearing Section had delayedall credits. They promised that it would nonetheless be value datedeffectiveOctober10 but when it was finally cleared on October 15, this was not done, depriving him ofhis interest for October. After persistent follow-up to no avail, on December 5, 2009, Mr. Vedapproached the CFBP which took up his case.Our CCPC was facing technical problems; local clearing was unduly delayed from all branches inMumbai during that period. An interest amount of Rs. 1,021/- has since been credited to the SB A/c ofthe complainant.- Gen. Manager (NW1), SBI, Mumbai

Pratip Kumar Mukherjee, Kolkata V/s Hindustan Sanitaryware & Industries Ltd., GurgaonMr. Mukherjee purchased a Hindware Auto Clean Chimney on September 8, 2008.He showed the Service Manager that it was not properly packed but it was stillinstalled. He later learnt that this was not done correctly, despite him payinginstallation charges. The product gave problems from the outset but they were notresolved, even after several visits and change of parts. His requests for an upgradeby paying the difference were not entertained and he was also disappointed as he

had referred the product to two friends who had bought it. Irritated by the company's lack ofresponsiveness, on December 14, 2009, he went to the CFBP which pursued his case.

The company has replaced my product with a new product on January 7, 2010. All other terms &conditions given by the company remain the same. I am now satisfied with the new product andservice provided by the company. - Pratip Kumar Mukherjee

Nobert Lobo, Chembur V/s HSBC, HDFC, StanChart & Citi Bank Mr. Lobo had credit cards of four banks always setteled his dues in time. At sometime, he stared paying minimum amount payble which was not an irregularity.When he realised that the interest and service tax is compounded, he drew it tobank's notice, did not get a proper responce, and so stopped making payments. He



arrived at a one time settlement with the banks but was still placed in Sibli List, preventing him fromappliaing for new credit cards. His credit rating was also disgraded. When he was not taken off afterconstant reminders, February 13, 2010 Mr. Lobo Contacted on which took up his case.

In response to your follow-up on my complaint regarding our name in Sibil, inspite of settling the duesof credit cards of four banks, I would like to inform you that the banks have responded favourably andupdated the records. - Norbert Lobo

Ajit V. Gole, Andheri V/s Ramabai Paranjape Balmandir, Vile Parle Mr. Gole had applied for his daughter's admission in the Nursery ICSE, paying Rs. 5,000as a registration fee and Rs. 30,000 as annual academic fees. The school's handwrittennote and fee receipts showed the registration fee as “not refundable” but did not indicatethis against the academic fees. Shortly after paying, he cancelled the admission as shegot into a desired school nearby. On asking for a refund of the academic fees, he was toldthat they were not refundable, and it was an ICSE management decision. Even afterseeing the receipts, they did not relent, and so, on August 13, 2010, he came to the CFBPwhich pursued his case.

We thank you for helping us in getting a refund of our tuition fees. We now request you to withdrawour complaint filed against Ramabai Paranjape Balmandir to enable us to visit them for collecting thenecessary refund cheque. - Ajit V. Gole

VOLTAS LTD., MUMBAI VS JAYESH LOHANA, MUMBAICFBP received a complaint from Mr. Jayesh Lohana in December 2009 about Voltas Airconditioner. Hehad annual maintenance contract for his 2 Airconditioners. The Airconditioners were pending forrepairs since Sep 2009 upon intervention of CFBP the matter has been resolved by Voltas to thesatisfaction of Mr. Jayesh Lohana.Voltas in their reply stated –

"In reference to your letter bearing ref. No. 61/3380/09 dated 3rd Feb 2010, regarding Mr. JayeshLohana’s complaint, we are happy to inform you that the complaint has been satisfactorily resolved."

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD., MUMBAI VS MR. RAJESH GUPTA, DELHI Mr. Rajesh Gupta purchased a Steam Iron of Bajaj make in Feb 2010. Since the iron was defective helodged a complaint with Bajaj Electricals as well as with CFBP. The matter was taken up with BajajElectricals Ltd. who immediately repaired the steam iron.Mr. Rajesh Gupta in his letter to CFBP stated that – "I made a complaint on 07/03/2010 and also on 18/3/2010 and at last my steam iron is properlyrepaired. Thanks for the efforts made by you and hope I will receive the same co-operation in futurealso. "

MR. NAROTTAM TOLA, MUMBAI VS BEST, MUMBAI Mr. Narottam Tola lodged a complaint with CFBP in December 2009 about collection of payment twiceby BEST for the Electricity Bill in July – Sep 2009. The matter was referred to BEST. Upon receipt ofCFBP’s letter, BEST deputed their representative to Mr. Narottam Tola’s residence and clarified thatthey did not charge twice to the customer. Mr. Tola in his letter to CFBP stated that he wassatisfied with the explanation and thanked CFBP for taking the matter



MRS. D.P. ELAVIA, MUMBAI VS GANDHIMATHI APPLIANCES LTD., CHENNAI Mrs. D.P. Elavia who purchased a Butterfly Gas Stove from a shop in Mumbai had problem in the twoBurner of the stove. She lodged a complaint with CFBP. The matter was referred to GandhimatiAppliances, Chennai who immediately taken action and replaced with a brand new stove. Mrs. Elaviathanked CFBP for taking prompt action.

VORA MEDICAL PUBLICATION, MUMBAI VS SIGMA MANPOWER SERVICES, MUMBAICFBP received a complaint from Vora Medical Publications Mumbai against Sigma Manpower Services,Mumbai. Vora Medical Publication paid a sum of Rs. 3100/- to Sigma Manpower Services to obtainservices from them to get good staff for their firm. Sigma did not provide any candidate nor refundedthe amount they collected from Vora Medical Publication.CFBP intervened in the matter, after several correspondences the matter was settled. VoraPublications in their letter thanked the CFBP for the co-operation extended in this matter.

ALLIED LEMUIR, CHENNAI VS ANAND SRIRAM, MUMBAIMr. Anand Sriram engaged the services of Allied Lemuir, Chennai for transportation of their householdarticles and the car from Chennai to Mumbai. The car was insured for a sum of Rs.1.50 lakh when itwas transported. The condition of the car was perfectly alright when it was picked up by the AlliedLemuir. However when the same was delivered to him in Mumbai, the car was damaged andsubsequently Mr. Anand Sriram lodged a complaint with Allied Lemuir for claim of Rs. 6100/-. He wasoffered only Rs.500 by Allied Lemuir. After CFBP intervened the matter, the claim was settled to thesatisfaction of Mr. Anand Sriram. Mr. Anand in his letter appreciated the CFBP for its relentlesseffort in trying to resolve the matter.

MR. K. JINARAJAN VS HDFC BANKMr. K. Jinarajan, of Thirukunnapuzha of Kerala lodged a complaint with CFBP against HDFCBank Borivali(W) Branch regarding wrongful debit of Rs. 20,000/- from his Kottayam Branch of HDFCBank for the loan obtained through Mumbai branch under different A/c. The matter was taken up withHDFC Mumbai as well as with Kottayam Branch on 13th Nov 2009 and the same was resolved to thesatisfaction of Mr. K Jinarajan. Mr. Jinarajan in his letter to CFBP stated – “ Reference copy ofyour letter no. 61/3152/09 dated 13th Nov 2009 addressed to HDFC Bank, Mumbai 400 092, inconnection with the above. Since the matter has been settled by HDFC, you are requested to kindlyclose the chapter at your end also. In the mean time I wish to thank you for your timely interventionfor an early settlement of the cas e.”

MR. CHANDRASHEKHAR M. KUSHWAHA VS STATE BANK OF INDIACFBP received a letter of complaint from Mr. Chandrashekhar Kushwaha of Thane against SBI for

undue delay in realisation of his cheques which were deposited on 6th & 8th April 2009.The matter was referred to SBI on 5th June 2009 who after investigating the matter stated that inmonth of April 2009 there were 7 public holidays which has resulted in delay of clearing cheques. SBIhas apologised for the delay and returned the charges debited to Mr. Kushwahas Account.

MR. SUBASH CHANDRA PANI VS HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.



Mr. Subash Chandra Pani of Bhubaneshwar applied for a second gas cylinder to Hindustan PetroleumCorporation Ltd. in July 2008. Though more than 11/2 year had elapsed he was not given the sanctionfor the 2nd cylinder. The matter was taken up by CFBP with Hindustan Petroleum in Oct 2009. Wehave received a reply from Director Marketing, Hindustan Petroleum on 20th Nov 2009 stating thatthe 2nd cylinder has been provided to Mr. Subash Chandra Pani on 6th Nov, 2009.

BAJAJ ELECTRCICALS LIMITEDShri S. V. Navadkar, retired serviceman, resident of Auravgabad, purchased a Bajaj fan from thearmy canteen-while installing the fan, it came to his notice that the box contained wrongattachements of Blades/Motor.He took complaint to the army canteen but they refushed to help him.Sri navadkar wrote to CFBP regarding the matter. CFBP took up the matter with Bajaj Electricals Ltd,who in turn promptly resolved the matter to the customer's satisfaction.

HERBALIFERepresentatives of Herbalife International India Pvt.Ltd., visited denis khan & emid khan for adealership to sell ther products.denis khan issued a personal cheque in the reprasentatives on theclear instructions that the cheque is not be encashed till they, denis khan & emid khan,acept the &conditions of the agreement.The representatives of Herbalife International Indai Pvt. Ltd. cashed the cheque, even thoough DenisKhan had not accepted or signed the agreement. When Denis Khan asked for his refund he wasrefused. He even lodged a police complaint Herbalife International India Pvt. Ltd. for fraudulentbusinass practies. CFBP took up the matter and Denis Khan was returned his cheque amount.

M/S. BOVING FOURESS LTD.M/s. Boving Fouress Ltd., placed an order with BIMCO ISOLATORS LTD for supply of 2 sets 11 kv 400amps Isolators on 05/06/2003. Boving Fouress being an ISO-9001 company, BIMCO did not feel theneed of taking an advance for the above order of RS. 58,000/-The material was tested and ready as per drawings for dispatch on 22/07/2003. after repeatedreminders to Bovings Fouress Ltd to collect their material there was no reponse from them.BIMCO communicated their problem to CFBP in june 2005. In August 2005, Boving Fouress Ltd. wroteto CFBP that they would pick up the material shortly and settle the issue. The matter was amicablysolved in January 2006.

M/S VERMA TRADING CO.M/s. Butterfly Book, Mumbai had purchased one 1.5 Tr Vertis Premium Split AC from Verma TradingCo. in April 2005. The air conditioner was not working properly since its inception. it required frequentrepairs. During the course of repair, the mechanic damaged the rotating louvers of the AC. this wasbrought to the notice of Verma Trading Company.Inspite of the repeated pleas by Butterfly Book to replace the rotating louvers, the company did nottake action. CFBP intervened in the matter and trading co immediately took action and that matterwas satisfactorily solved.

VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.Ms. Soonu R. Mehta of Colaba, Mumbai had purchased a Videocon TV in 1998 under the money backscheme floated by Videocon. The purchase amount of Rs. 14,990/- was to be paid to Ms. SoonuMehta on 8.5.2004 against the Bond Receipt issued to her. However inspite of repeated follow up, she



did not receive the refund. CFBP took up the matter with Videocon on 15.2.2005 and the party got therefund immediately.

DUES FROM RAILWAYSMangalam Dairy of Kandivali had entered into a contract with Western Railway for display of Boardson Kandivali Foot over Bridge for which they paid Rs. 7153/-. The Western Railway terminated thecontract in April 2004 and decided to refund the deposit to the party. However the deposit was notrefunded till December 2005 by the Railways. The matter was taken up with Western Railways yieldedpositive result and the party received the payment but without the interest for the delayed payment.

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LTD.The Petrol Dealers' Association, Mumbai lodged a complaint to CFBP about non-receipt of dues fromStandard Chartered Bank for the Credit Card Sale Volume provided by the Petrol Pump Dealers inMumbai. The Association while sending the complaint to CFBP also endorsed a copy to the StandardChartered Bank. The Bank had promptly resolved the grievance and the matter was closed.

CREDIT CARD BLUES!Mr. Dinesh Parekh was appalled at receding a Visa Gold Card bill showing a lifetime fee of Rs. 2499/-he had been approached by the Visa Gold Card marketing personnel, requesting him to accept thecard and was specifically told that since a Visa card was being allotted, it was free of charge or no

joining or annual fee was applicable. Mr. Parekh was chagrinned and rightly so at the prospect of ahighly esteemed institution like Standard Chartered Bank using misleading and deceptive practices.He dashed off a strong letter to the authorities concerned and copied the same to CFBP. On receivingCFBP’s strongly worded reprimand, taking note of the serious nature of the matter the card servicesdepartment replied by the email and clarified that the said Gold card was issued at a reduced lifetimeand that no annual fee would be charged henceforth. But Mr. Parekh was not looking for pacificationand returned the neither activated nor used card pursued the matter to highlight the unethical salestactics used. The services manager, credit card department acknowledge in a letter that having gonethrough the matter, there had been reason to be concerned and apologised for it.

VIDEOCONCFBP had received several complaints about non-refund money collected by Videocon IinternationalLtd., under their money back scheme introduced in 1998. One such was from Ms. Soonu Mehata fromMumbai. She had submitted all the documents required by M/s Wellington & Associates who had beenappointed by Videocon International to coordinate the bond redemption process. Surprisingly, she didnot hear from either. She was further distraught as there was no contact number or street addressprovided by Videocon whereby she could follow up with M/s Wellington & Associate in Hyderabad. Shesent photocopies of her correspondence to CFBP, requesting assistance. CFBP wrote to VideoconInternational and the matter was resolved within a week.

MR. MICHAEL F. FERNANDESWrote to CFBP about a defective piece of furniture, supplied by M/s. Regal Safe Mfg. Co., which heclaimed was not as per his order or the original design. CFBP corresponded with the supplier andcomplainant, and eventually convened a joint meeting of the parties at its office for a mutuallyacceptable settlement. The matter was discussed at length and resulted in the subsequentreplacement of the defective piece at an additional cost of just Rs. 450/-. Mr. Fernandes was grateful



to CFBP for the resolutions of the matter in a cordial atmosphere to his satisfaction.CFBP calls a joint meeting and resolves complaint amicably.

MR. RAJAT SHETH SHAH, BILIMORA, GUJRAT VS M/S. JANTA STORES, MUMBAI.Mr. Rajat Sheth Shah from Bilimora, Gujrat, wrote to CFBP complaining about the non-despatch ofgoods ordered from M/s. Janta Stores, Mumbai. CFBP took the appropriate action and soon received a

letter of gratitude from Mr. Rajat Sheth Shah for the prompt delivery of the goods.

E. RANGRAJAN, DELHI, VS M/S. FAIR DEAL AUTOMOBILES, DELHI.CFBP received a letter of grievance from an irate owner of a Bajaj Legend NXT2 Stroke scooter. Mr. E.Rangarajan, being a loyal Bajaj Customer for more than eight years, made his purchase on 10th July,2004. To his dismay, his new scooter stalled in the middle of the road and that too, just two dayslater after the purchase. M/s. fair Deal Automobiles sent a mechanic who came and made someadjustments. But, again, the scooter stopped functioning on a late night ride about a week later.Nobody was sent, despite repeated complaints being made. To his chagrin, the vehicle lay in anunusable state for the next fortnight though it had done just 300-plus kms. Clearly harrsed, he tookup the matter with M/s. bajaj Auto Ltd., Delhi, with the copy of the letter sent to CFBP. On beingasked o respond by 30th September, 2004, a positive reply was received on 15/9/2004 itself, statingthat the vehicle had been attended to and delivered to Mr. E.Rangrajan, with the request of speakingdirectly to the Delhi office.

MRS. SHYMA NIVAS, MUMBAI VS GE COUNTRYWIDE.Mrs. Shyama Nivas wrote to CFBP about a payment amounting to Rs. 8,316/- due but not received byher from G.E.Countrywide on surrendering the original Security Deposit Reciept. Despite numerouscalls made by her, she was unable to get a reason for the short payment and was distressed aboutthe amount and the apathy shown by the offices of G.E. Countrywide, She sought the intervention ofCFBP in the matter. On being contacted the customer service department looked into their recordsand cleared up the matter by sending the TDS Certificate of tte said amount.

R. SASIDHARAN FROM TRIPUNITHURA VS JOHN’S UMBRELA MART. R. Sasidharan from Tripunithura received a FRP umbrella as a gift from the society. It was exactlywhat his daughter wanted and so it proved to be truly “God - sent.” As she excitedly left for the schoolthe next day the proud owner of a FRP umbrella, it started raining. As she pressed the button to openthe umbrella, it opened but she heard a loud click. The plastic portion on one of the bars was broken.So she could neither close nor open i t properly and returned home feeling upset and ridiculed. Onbeing contacted, the proprietor of Joh n’s Umbrella Mart, the manufacturer of this prestigious product,promptly replied that the complaint had already been attended too.John’s Umbrella Mart, had not only asked Mr. R. Sasidharan to send the faulty umbrella by courierservice on the same day that he called to comlain about it, but had also send him the repairedumbrella by courier service . to their credit, john’s Umbrella Mart also sent the courier charges borneby Mr. R.Sasidharan alongwith the repaired umbrella. No wonder! As it turned out, John’s UmbrellaMart was the recipient of CFBP’s Jamnalal Bajaj Award for Fair Business Practices a few years ago.

M/S. OM SURGICALS, MUMBAI VS DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, INDIA .On recieving a complaint from M/s. Om Surgicals regarding non-delivery of a post parcel to their clientin Hameerpur (U.P.) valued at Rs. 42,603/-, CFBP was asked to intervene. The parcel was dispatchedon 12/4/2003. Efforts to trace the parcel were on-going and inter-departmental enquiries resulted in athick file of correspondence exchanged, personal visits to the offices of Post Departments and even



attendance at a Dak Adalat failed to yield results. After four months, a distressed Mr. Rashmikantgangar of M/s. Om Surgicals asked CFBP's assitance in locating the missing parcel. On beingcontacted, the Asstt. Director Postal Services, Business Development Cell, Mumbai, promptly repliedacknowledging that the enquiries revealed that the parcel had been lost, and their office had directedthe Sr. Supdt. of Post Offiices, Mumbai tp pay the justified compensation.

MS. SUPRIYA JOSHI VS HDFC BANK, MUMBAI.CFBP recieved a complaint from Ms. Supriya Joshi with reference to a Credit Card issued to her byHDFC Bank, Mumbai. Contrary to her telephonic conversation with a representative of the bank, shewas charged a biling membership Fee of Rs. 525/-. In reply to CFBP's letter, the Customer ServiceOfficer, HDFC Cards Division, apologised for the apparent miscommunication between the salesexecutive and Ms. Supriya Joshi. They thanked her for bringing it to their attention so that it was notrepeated. The Bank cancelled the said credit card account as requested and reversed the membershipfee levied. Ms Supriya Joshi in her letter to HDFC Bank (a copy of the letter was sent to CFBP)expressed her appreciation in prompt action taken in "setting the matters right." Being an Accountholder of HDFC Bank she also said that "I trust that HDFC Bank Management, whom i hold in high

esteem, will be scrupulous in following good business practices."

MR. UDAYKUMAR KAWA VS FLY MERIDIAN MOBILE PVT. LTD.Mr. Udaykumar Kawa purchased Fly handset on Sep 2008. But unfortunately the front cover of themobile got faded and the same was sent to their service centre for the replacement of the front cover.But instead of replacing the faded cover the original hand set was replaced with another one. But thereplaced set was defective one and was not functioning properly, so Mr. Kawa refused to accept it andthe same was returned to the service centre.Mr. Kawa approached CFBP on Jan 2009 and after our intervention the matter was resolved on Feb2009. Mr. Kawa received a brand new handset of his same model from the mobile company.

MR. KASHI PRASAD MODI VS SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS P. LTD.Mr. Kashi Prasad Modi purchased Samsung Refrigerator and within three months of its purchase dueto water leakage the vegetables started getting spoilt and there was not enough cooling in the fridge.Mr. Modi approached CFBP on Dec 2008 with his complaint and on 5th Feb 2009 we received a letterfrom Samsung India Electronics Ltd. stating that the defect in the fridge has been rectified and is nowin satisfactory working condition.

MR. MAHENDRA V. GADPALE VS M.I.R.C. ELECTRONICS INDIA LTD.

CFBP received a complaint from Mr. Mahendra V. Gadpale against Onida i.e M.I.R.C. Electronics IndiaLtd.Mr. Gadpale purchased TV in the year 2004 and within 4 years of its purchase the TV Tube burst.When he approached Onida Customer Relation Centre for his grievance, they agreed for only 40%reimbursement of the cost of TV Tube and the rest 60% should be paid by Mr. Gadpale.CFBP intervened in the matter and after several correspondences Onida has agreed to pay 50% of thecost of TV tube + tax.



Documents

National Experiences of Consumer Exploitation