Deficiency in Services and defects in goods

Remedy under the CPA, 1986

Railways Union of India and Ors. V. Nathmal Hansaria and Anr. (1997) 5 CPJ315 (CP) (NCDRC) Facts: Kabita Hansaria, a railway passenger died because of her fall from the passage between the two compartments because it did not have grills on sides to hold her back in case of jerk during he movement of train. Issues Whether a railway passenger traveling in a train on payment of consideration is a consumer under the Act? Section 82 A of the railways Act Section 13 of the railways Claims tribunal Act, 1987 provide for compensation for Railway accidents and not for an accidental death of this nature.

 Judgment Assam State Commission gave the judgment in favour of the plaintiff Kabita. Appeal was made National commission held that the State commission was right in pointing out that a railway passenger is a consumer and the death of Kabita was caused by her fall from the passage between the two compartments because it did not have grills on sides to hold her back in case of jerk during the movement of train.

 AIRLINES Todays competitive scenario the airlines offer facilities such as Frequent Flyer benefits, better quality of food, friendly staff and crew, telephone services etc. Ajay Kalia v. Air India Limited Decided on 24/7/08 Facts; Ajay Kalia, along with his family, traveled New Delhi-Dubai-New Delhi on Air India. On the day of their return(2/1/2007) from Dubai to New Delhi, they suffered an ordeal. The departure time of their flight was 1700 hours, they reached the air port and found that the flight was delayed.

 Finally, when the flight took Off, it landed at the Mumbai air port after 5 hours, instead of landing at the Delhi airport. At the Mumbai air port, Ajay Kalia and all the other passengers were kept waiting in the Lounge for more than 24 hours without any seat, rest or proper meals. The Air India personnel did not care to intimate the reason or the cause of this piecemeal extension of delay.

 Ajay Kalia claimed Rs. 4,80,000/-as compensation for each passenger although he orally submitted that the money was not the issue in this petition. Interim Order of the National Commission National Commissions direction to Air-India: to produce the guidelines regarding the flight irregularities prescribed by them.

 These regulations should be made known to the public at large, to place regulations at prominent place at every airport in the country from where Air India operates.

 Air India v. Prakash SinghI(2008) CPJ334. Facts: Prakash Singh and His wife had booked two tickets on the Air India for Delhi-Hong Kong-USA-SeoulSingapore-Delhi. They had confirmed booking for 3/6/02 for the last sector Singapore-Delhi. An email was sent on 7/4/02 to prepone their journey from 3/6/02 to 2/6/02. No communication received from Air India regarding whether the change was effected or not.

 They tried to contact the Air India office at Singapore on 27, 28, 29/5/02. Every time there was a taped voice stating all operators are busy. They made efforts to contact Mr. Sen Gupta, the senior most officer of Air India at Singapore but could not reach him. On 29/05/02 they left Bali Islands and on their return on 1/6/02, they were told by Air India that since their seats were not confirmed, they had been automatically cancelled by the system on 31/5/02. Therefore they had no seats for either 2/6/02 or 3/6/02 to return to Delhi

 Air India refused to accommodate them on the flight on 2/6/02 and forced them to upgrade their tickets from V class to L class after charging Singapore dollar 234. As there was no other alternative, the complainants paid this amount and finally, managed to travel to Delhi on 2.6.02.

 Air India contested that the seats get cancelled automatically if they are not re-confirmed within 72 hours prior to the date of the scheduled journey. At the same time, Air India could not contradict the contentions made by the complainants regarding receipts of emails for preponement. It also could not give any answer regarding not informing of the complainant about the cancellation of tickets or the preponement of the tickets whatever, after the request was made by the complainants. In fact, Air India maintained complete silence in this regard.

 Clear from the evidence produced that the telephone lines of Air India remained continuously busy and recorded voice was fed on the telephone. The Air India Accepted their lapse. In response to the issue regarding re-confirmation it was held that in the present day of globalization and advance technology, air India can not expect passengers to rush to its office to pass on simple message of reconfirmation or cancellation of their tickets. The commission directed Air India to refund the money that had been paid by the complainants along with an interest at the rate of 10% p.a.

 Vinod Sanghhi v. Hyderabad Siver Hawk, II (2007) CPJ 168 Vegetarians denied vegetarian food.

Education
Case of Derecognized University Based on the advertisement issued by Raj University, Hari Prasad, got himself admitted into MBA course. When he was about to appear for the examination, he came to know that the institution was de-recognized. The Karnataka State Commission held that when the Institution itself had been de-recognized, it ought not to have admitted the students to the course.

 The advertisement issued by the university amounts to misleading the public which is clearly unfair trade practice. Even if the students are permitted to appear for the examination and the Raj University awards degrees, still it would be considered invalid because they do not have any recognition. The Commission directed Raj University to refund the fee collected by it along with a compensation of Rs. 25000/- and to remit Rs. 25000/- to the Consumer Welfare Fund as Warning Signal.

Electricity Services
Jharkhand State electricity Board v. Anwar Ali(IV, (2007) CPJ 6 (SC)) Whether the Consumer Fora have jurisdiction to deal with the grievances of the consumer of electricity, in case of deficiency in service by electricity supplier, after enactment of Electricity Act, 2003?

 Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Charan Singh, I (1999) CPJ 162 Facts- shri Charan Singh carried cultivation and cattle farm . In his field live electric line was passing over and those wires have become loose and that they were hardly seven to eight feet high from the ground. Whenever there was a storm , wire could fall on the ground. Many written complaints were lodged. Care was not taken by electricity board.

 No rectification by the electric company. One day a she buffalo died due to electrocution. It

Defective goods
Hindustan Lever Ltd. v Jitendra Kumar Gupta, II(2005) CPJ 499 Facts: Jitendra kumar purchased 1 Kg. sealed packet of surf manufactured by Hindustan Lever Ltd. From Ashok Kumar Anil Kumar- the retailer He found less weight in the packet It was brought to the notice of the retailer

 Thereafter, he sent a Regd. Post to Hindustan Lever Company. Initially he was assured-3 packets of 500 grams would be given to him. Not given to him He finally got a notice from them that decrease in weight was possibly due to atmospheric and weather condition.

 He wrote to the company but it was unheard. Complaint was filed in the Distt. consumer forum. Dist forum directed Hindustan Lever to refund the price for 400 gms of surf which was short along with the compensation of Rs. 5000/and the cost of Rs. 2,000/- and further levied a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be deposited in the Govt. treasury .

 The State Commission held that the consumer had a right to claim compensation for his grievances under CPA, 1986 and the relief given to the consumer is confirmed, but the order of deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Govt. Treasury was set aside.

 K. Ramesh, S/o. Hanumantha Rao v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., C.C. 113 of 2007 Facts: Ramesh Purchased 8 bottles of Mazza from Siva Sai fancy and Cool drinks. He served it to his friends, three bottles were consumed. In one of the bottle , Gutkha packet was found.s

 Keeping this bottle safely he filed case in the district consumer forum. Distributor was not held liable Retailer and the manufacturer were held liable. Ramesh has purchased 8 bottles for Rs. 9 each, out of it three were consumed. The Manufacturer was directed to refund the price of remaining bottles, with a compensation of Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 1000/- as costs to be paid within 30 days.