| |

Finance
company penalised
Tribune
News Service
CHANDIGARH, July 21
The UT Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I has
penalised a finance company for not refunding the
deposited amount on expiry of the maturity date.
Mrs Sunita, a resident
of SAS Nagar, has in her complaint filed before the Forum
stated that she had deposited a sum of Rs 1 lakh with M/s
Hoffland Finance Ltd in the fixed deposit scheme on May
19, 1997, and in lieu of that two receipts of Rs 50,000
each were issued. She has further contended that to
discharge their liability to repay the matured amount and
interest, the company had issued post-dated cheques,
which stood bounced on being presented to the bank. She
filed the complaint when all her efforts to seek refund
of the deposited amount failed.
A notice was issued to
the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the company, but
since he did not appear, the Forum proceeded against him
ex-parte. However, the manager of the company based at
Chandigarh in his reply stated that he was working only
as a manager and hence no liability could be fastened on
him.
After perusal of the
records, the Forum bench comprising its President, Dr H.C
Modi, and members, Dr R.K Behl and Ms Shashi Kanta, held
that the cheques issued by the company with regard to
re-payment of maturity amount stood dishonoured with the
remark `` returned due to insufficient funds.'' Holding
the company guilty of deficiency in services, they
directed the company to pay an amount of Rs 1,15,500
along with an interest of 12 per cent per annum from the
respective dates of cheques/advance payments orders till
its payment. A sum of Rs 1,000 was also awarded as costs
to the complainant.
Order modified: The
UT Disputes Redressal Commission, while modifying an
order passed by District Forum-II, has directed Escorts
Yamaha Motors Ltd, Faridabad, to replace the defective
engine assembly of a motorcycle with a new one and pay Rs
10,000 as compensation to a consumer.
Earlier, in a complaint
filed before the Forum, Mr Anil Kumar Vishwakarma, posted
at Pune, had stated that he had purchased a motorcycle
`Yamaha RXG' from the dealer, Classy Mobike, Sector 34.
He said that the vehicle carried a warranty card of six
months or the first 7,500 km, whichever occurs earlier.
He alleged that the vehicle after running 1,800 km gave a
knocking sound. The piston kit of the vehicle which was
found defective was replaced by the dealer on July 1,
1997. However, when the piston gave the same knocking
sound it was replaced the second time on September 8,
1997. But the same problem once again arose four days
later on September 12, 1997, and the kit had to be
replaced. Hence, the piston kit was replaced thrice
within a short period of five months. He filed this
complaint to demand replacement of the vehicle along with
costs during the warranty period.
In the appeal, the
manufacturer, Escorts Yamaha Motors, maintained that
there was no provision in the warranty card for the
replacement of the complete vehicle. Only defective parts
could be replaced.
The Commission bench
comprising its President, Mr Justice J.B Garg, and
members, Col. P.K Vasudeva ( retd) and Mrs Devinderjit
Dhatt, after hearing both parties observed that the
engine of the vehicle suffered from serious defects, as
it necessitated the replacement of the piston kit thrice
within a short period of five months.
The Commission directed
the manufacturer to replace the engine assembly of the
motorcycle at the place of posting of the consumer or a
nearby station. However, if they failed to replace the
engine assembly within a period of two months, the
manufacturer would be liable to pay a sum of Rs 15,000
together with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per
annum. They further directed the company to pay a sum of
Rs 10,000 on account of mental harassment and agony
suffered by the consumer. The dealer, Classy Mobike Pvt
Ltd, who was only the local distributor was absolved.
Defective suits:
While upholding the order of District Forum-II
regarding the sale of defective silk suits, the UT
Disputes Redressal Commission has enhanced the cost of
compensation from Rs 250 to Rs 500.
In her complaint filed
before the Forum, Mrs Sunita Khullar, a resident of
Sector 44, had stated that she had bought two silk suits
from M/s Bangalore Silk Sarees, Sector 17, for Rs 650 and
Rs 610, respectively, on February 27, 1997.
She further averred that
although the material of the suit priced at Rs 650 was
found defective, the shopkeeper allegedly refused to make
good the loss either by replacing the defective material
or by repaying the costs of material and stitching
charges..
Since no one appeared on
behalf of the shopkeeper to rebut the allegations, the
case was proceeded against ex-parte. The Forum had in its
order directed the shopkeeper to pay Rs 650 towards the
costs of the suit and 50 per cent of the stitching
charges amounting to Rs 175 in addition to Rs 250 as
costs.
The Commission bench,
comprising its President, Mr Justice J.B Garg, and
members, Col P.K Vasudeva ( retd) and Mrs Devinderjit
Dhatt, after going through the records and evidence
produced by the parties directed the shopkeeper to pay
the full cost of the suit material and stitching charges
amounting to Rs 650 and Rs 350, respectively, besides
costs of Rs 500.
|