DDA told to pay Rs 3 lakh for faulty flat

NEW DELHI: Pulling up Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for handing over a flat having structural defects, the national consumer court has asked the authority to pay Rs 3 lakh to the flat owner. The court also directed DDA to fix the structural defects in three months. "DDA shall restore the flat/structure allotted to the complainant to the physical condition it was in when the possession was offered to the complainant.... Such rectification shall be done by DDA at its own cost," said D K Jain, president of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The commission asked DDA to "hand over the possession of the flat" after fixing the defects while upholding the order of the state consumer court, which had granted the compensation to the owner for a delay of 17 years in getting the possession in a "habitable condition". Pramod Pal Singh had moved the state consumer court claiming that he was allotted an expandable house in 1995 by DDA in Sector 25 in Rohini Phase III for Rs 3,36,840. He alleged that DDA's brochure had claimed that the construction was complete and promised all basic amenities like water and sewage except electricity in some pockets. However, despite making several requests to the authority, the flats were not made habitable and he could not take possession, the complainant said. After DDA moved the national commission, the consumer court appointed a lawyer to inspect the flat and it was found that the flat was in a bad condition. "The report clearly brings out that the structure has plaster cracks in the front and some windows have no glasses. The kitchen, the electricity panel on the staircase, the toilet and the switch box have no wiring. Several doors have no knobs. The photographs show that the tiles are in a highly damaged state and external plaster is falling apart in several places," Jain said. Singh also raised other issues about violation of norms of construction by a neighbouring allottee. The court, however, directed the complainant to approach the appropriate authority as it was not in its purview to deal with the issue. "It is evident that these issues fall within the statutory domain of the authorities concerned. They are not open to consideration in a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in the service rendered to the complainant.... On other issues raised in the appeal, liberty is reserved for the complainant to seek appropriate remedy as per law," the national commission said.

Consumer court asks Lenovo India to compensate

NEW DELHI: Computer giant Lenovo India has been directed by a Delhi district consumer forum to pay a compensation of Rs 25,000 to one of its customers and refund him the cost of a defective laptop bought by him. "The act of the Lenovo India Pvt Ltd and its service centre amounts to deficiency in service. It resulted in mental agony and harassment to the complainant," said President B B Chaudhary of Delhi District Consumer Grievances Redresaal Forum, reprimanding Lenovo and its service centre for failure in mending the laptop. "We allow the complaint with direction (to Lenovo) to refund the amount of Rs 37,000 along with a sum of Rs 20,000 for causing harassment, mental pain and agony and a sum of Rs 5,000 as litigation charges," said the forum. The order came on a complaint by a city chartered rpt chartered accountant firm, Jain Raj Associates, alleging it faced repeated problems in the working of the laptop bought in 2008 and the company failed to set it right at its service centre. It said the laptop, bought for Rs 32,000 along with Rs 5,000 for extended warranty, developed a problem and the 'Q' key of the laptop popped out within a year of purchase and could not be fixed till date.

No return for undeclared goods damaged in transit: Consumer court

AHMEDABAD: A consumer could not get worth of the broken consignment sent through courier services only because he did not disclose type of the goods he was sending. A consumer court has asked courier services to return courier charges for late delivery of parcel in the US, but did not ask them to return the value of broken temple in the parcel because the consumer had not declared the type of consignment at the time of booking.

According to case details, Ahmedabad-based Nandlal Thakkar sent a wooden temple to his acquaintance in New Briten in the US through two courier services - DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd and S Service. He paid Rs 12,500 towards courier charges in February 2008. But the parcel did not reach to its destination in time, and when it reached, the wooden temple was found in broken condition. Thakkar sued both the courier agencies before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad (Additional), which asked the courier agencies to pay $100 to Thakkar for deficiency in service, but the order was silent on return of courier charges. Thakkar moved the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Gujarat and claimed that the wooden temple was broken during transit, and the delivery also got delayed. Hence he should be compensated for the loss and the courier services should be asked to pay for deficiency in service. The consumer court asked the courier services to return Rs 12,500 with 9% interest since 2008. But the consumer court concluded that though the value of the consignment was Rs 33,500 as per the claimant, but since he did not declare the type of consignment before the courier service at the time of booking, as per the law, he was entitled to get only $100. The commission, however, asked the courier services to pay him Rs 1,000 towards cost of litigation, but the consumer failed to recover the value of the goods only because he did not disclose what he was sending in the parcel.

Pepsi fined for selling substandard soft drink

AHMEDABAD: A consumer court has imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd for selling "substandard" drink in market after a consumer found insects inside a soft drink bottle. The company has been asked to deposit the amount with the Consumer Welfare Fund. Thaltej resident Maulik Soni purchased a 200-ml bottle of Slice in August last year, and found insects inside it. He complained to the store owner and the distributor. He also filed a complaint before the Consumer District Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad (rural) and sought compensation from the multinational giant. He requested the court to get the soft drink analyzed in a laboratory. Accordingly, the bottle was sent to an AMC laboratory, which reported that the drink was not up to the standard claimed by the company and could cause health problem, if consumed. When company's explanation was sought, it claimed that it is a reputed multinational and has an automated plant to manufacture soft drinks. The company also contended that since the consumer did not drink soft drink, no injury caused to him. The complaint was just a means for the consumer to extract money. However, the consumer court observed that the analysis and photographs revealed that the drink contained material that could not be consumed. The court also observed that when the company claims that it is a reputed multinational across the world, sale of such sub-standard product by it is a very serious matter. Normally people would not drink from the bottle, once they find such material inside the bottle. Selling such drink is nothing but deficiency in service. The consumer court fined the company with Rs 50,000 and asked it as well as the store keeper to pay Rs 2,000 each to the consumer towards compensation and litigation cost. Earlier this year, the consumer commission asked this company to pay Rs 20,000 to a consumer, who found a gutka pouch floating inside the packed soft drink bottle he had purchased.

Builder told to hand over in 3 months a flat sold 9 years ago

MUMBAI: A consumer court has directed a construction company to hand over the possession of a 517-sq-ft flat in Andheri to its buyer within three months and pay him compensation of Rs 2.2 lakh. The company had failed to turn over the apartment to the purchaser for nearly a decade. Nalasopara resident Prabhat Dethe had filed a complaint before the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on March 3, 2012. In the complaint, Dethe said he had booked a flat, which was to be constructed at Azad Nagar in Andheri (West), for Rs 10.34 lakh in August 2004. After he paid Rs 5 lakh, he was given the allotment letter on August 30, 2004. However, he did not get a copy of the sale agreement from the construction company, Vaidehi Akash Housing, he said.

Over the next five years, Dethe made several requests to the company to furnish a copy of the sale agreement and complete the construction. He got a response from the company on April 21, 2009, where it said that there were many impediments in the project and hence the construction was stalled. The company said that getting the requisite permissions would take time and, if Dethe wanted, it could return the amount he paid. The company added that if Dethe wished to continue with the agreement he would have to pay more for the apartment. Aggrieved, Dethe complained to the forum. In the absence of the construction company's legal representation in the forum, an ex parte order was passed on Monday. The forum said that seeking excessive payment from Dethe was a sort of exploitation. It pointed out that the company was aware of the permissions required to commence construction and said that the reasons it gave Dethe were false and a means to extract more money from him. The consumer forum observed that even if Dethe had taken a refund, it would have been of no use because flat prices have skyrocketed. The forum said it would be just and appropriate to direct the company to hand over the possession of the flat.