
Refund of pump
ordered
Tribune
News Service
CHANDIGARH, June 23
The UT Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II has
directed a dealer to refund Rs 375, the price of the
defective cooler pump along with interest and costs.
In the complaint filed
before the forum, Mr Kuldip Singh Walia, a resident of
Mohali, stated that he had purchased a cooler pump from
M.K Agencies, Sector 17, for Rs 375 on May 15, 1996, with
a one-year guarantee. He further alleged that the pump
stopped functioning within a month of its purchase and he
gave the pump for repair to the dealer.
After repair, the pump
again abruptly stopped functioning and gave foul smell as
if the motor of the pump had got burnt. Thereafter, he
again approached the dealer and requested him to replace
the pump with a new one. The dealer retained the pump and
asked the him to wait till a new pump was arranged from
the manufacturers. Despite repeated visits, the pump was
not replaced.
In his reply, the
proprietor of the dealer, Mr Mandip Singh contended that
only the manufacturer is liable to replace the defective
pump in accordance with the terms on the guarantee card.
Notice was subsequently issued to the manufacturer based
at Faridabad, but no one appeared on his behalf.
After going through the
records, the forum Bench comprising its President, Mr
R.P. Bajaj and members H.S.Walia and Kamlesh Gupta held
the dealer guilty of deficiency in service for his
failure to replace the defective pump or refund its
price. They directed the dealer to refund the price of
the pump along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent
per annum from June 15, 1996, till its realisation. The
sum of Rs 550 was also awarded as cost of litigation and
compensation for harassment.
Co.
found guilty
The UT Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum-II has directed a local investment
company to refund the maturity amount of deposit along
with interest and costs.
The complainant, Mr
Ravinder Kumar Jain has stated that he had deposited Rs
251 with the investment company on February 28, 1987
under the "Nine Years New Life Multi Benefit
Scheme'' floated by it. As per the terms and conditions
of this scheme, he was to be paid back Rs 750 on the date
of maturity i.e. February 28, 1996. After several visits,
a cheque dated May 30, 1996 for Rs 750 drawn on Canara
Bank, Sector 35-B, was issued. However, the cheque was
dishonoured on account of "insufficient funds''.
The case was proceeded
ex parte when nobody appeared on behalf of the company
nor filed any reply.
The forum Bench
comprising its President, Mr R.P. Bajaj and members H.S.
Walia and Kamlesh Gupta held the company guilty of
deficiency in service for non-payment of the amount of
maturity of the deposit. They directed the company to pay
Rs 750 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per
annum from February 28, 1996, besides Rs 250 as costs.
PSB
penalised
The District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum-II has penalised the Punjab and
Sind Bank for issuing a defective bank draft to a
consumer who had applied for shares.
Maj-Gen Umrao Singh
(retd), a shareholder of ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards
Ltd, has in his complaint stated that he had applied for
325 equity shares at the price of Rs 100 per share, when
the company floated a "Right Issue''. He had got a
draft for Rs 35,000 prepared from Punjab and Sind Bank,
Sector 11, Chandigarh, and sent it to the Citibank along
with the application. The Punjab and Sind Bank, New
Delhi, at which the draft was drawn did not honour it and
asked Citibank to refer it to the issuing branch because
the said branch had not put the stamp of the issue branch
on the draft. Consequently, when his application was
returned, he got the draft stamped from the bank and sent
it back to Citibank. But since by that time, the issue
had closed on December 18, 1993, the application was
returned.
The company also refused
to allot the shares because the allotment of the shares
was already over and it was not possible to accept
further application.
The complainant has
further alleged Punjab and Sind Bank guilty of deficiency
in service, which caused him a loss of Rs 1,20,250, the
difference of price of shares prevailing in the market as
compared to the cost of shares offered to the
complainant.
In its reply, Punjab and
Sind Bank admitted that the complainant had got a draft
made from him. It further maintained that the delay was
committed by Citibank when it sent the draft for
collection on December 16, 1993, and that the loss has
been caused to the complainant on account of that delay.
The forum Bench
comprising its President, Mr R.P. Bajaj and members H.S.
Walia and Kamlesh Gupta held Punjab and Sind Bank
deficient of service while issuing the draft for Rs
35,000 to the complainant and maintained that the initial
mistake of not putting the requisite stamp on the draft
was not denied by them. It further observed, "No
doubt Citibank sent the draft for encashment after some
time but then Citibank was supposed to assume that the
draft being in order could not be encashed within the
time, it was valid. The draft was sent within the period
of its validity. The delay, if any, does not condone the
initial lapse on the part of Punjab and Sind Bank so as
to absolve it of its liability on account of deficiency
in service. Hence, Citibank is not liable nor is a party
in this case.''
As regards the quantum,
the forum noticed that the complainant has claimed a huge
amount on account of the difference between the marked
value of the shares and the cost price. The complainant's
counsel had produced a certificate from the broker to
enable them to assess it. But as the said broker was not
brought before the forum, his writing could not be taken
into consideration. Since the market price of the shares
remains highly fluctuating, it does not afford a reliable
material to assess the loss with exactitude.
They directed the bank
to pay the complainant interest on the amount of Rs
35,000 at the rate of 12 per cent per annum with effect
from November 23, 1993, till the refund of the amount to
him. 
|