CONSUMER GRIEVANCES : SUCCESS CASES
Kanta Bhakta, Mumbai V/s A Jeweller in Dadar, Mumbai
On March 18, 2011, Kanta Bhakta purchased a pair of bangles and a single bangle from a jeweller in Dadar. They were declared to be of 22 carat gold purity and accordingly she was charged for gold of 22 carat purity plus an additional amount as making charges. After the purchase, the bangles were kept in her locker. Both during Diwali 2010 and at the marriage of a relative, her daughter used the bangles. By coincidence, the complainant came across the X-ray gold testing facility of Tanishq Jewellers 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 out that they were of less than 17 carat purity and not 22 carat, as had been represented at the time of the sale. Shaken by this discovery, she immediately visited the jeweller from whom she had bought the bangles along with the cash memo. He refused to accept her claim and her efforts to reason with him were in vain. So she came to the CFBP who, with the help of its Legal Cell, drafted a complaint for her to file in the Consumer Court. A notice was sent to the jeweller giving him a last chance to settle the matter before the Consumer Court was moved.
"The jeweller rushed to settle the matter with me and the complaint was resolved to my satisfaction."
Mohan Lalvani, Mumbai V/s Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad
Mohan Lalvani purchased a Skoda Superb during December 2009. He was not happy with its performance and the car also had frequent problems. A few months later, after slowing down to 5-10 km/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 resolve the issue. Hence, he turned to the CFBP in March 2011.
"As per the dealership feedback, the vehicle is performing to standard without any vibration when accelerating. The vehicle was reported to the dealership on May 13, 2011 for the second free service and, as per the job order, there is no complaint of vehicle vibration recorded. The necessary work was completed accordingly and the Service Manager has conducted a joint test drive with the vehicle's professional driver and it was found that it was performing normally without any concern so it was delivered to his satisfaction."
- Srinivas Sudhir & Nitin Dixit, Executives - After Sales, Skoda Auto India
Kailash Vasdev, New Delhi V/s Bajaj Electricals Ltd., Mumbai
Kailash Vasdev purchased a 30 ltr. Morphy Richards Microwave Oven on September 12, 2010. During February 2011, one of the safety locks on the door snapped. It was sent to the Delhi service centre for repairs. After continuous follow up, the door was not replaced as the service centre said that it was not available and nothing could be done until the part was received from the company. Frustrated by this 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 happened without 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., Chennai
Bhavesh Chandra Jha ordered some goods from Royal Images Catalogue Co. He paid for them through his credit card. However, the company had the goods inadvertently delivered to a wrong address. When he brought this to their attention, they accepted that an error had been made but did not refund/re-credit his payment. He persistently followed up with them to get his money back but did not succeed, despite his best efforts. Left with no alternative, he brought his case to the CFBP on March 16, 2011.
"Thanks for your early response. The company has responded after you wrote to them and taken the necessary action. The money has since been refunded to my bank account."
- Bhawesh Chandra Jha
Jyoti Mehta, Waidhan, M.P. V/s Bajaj Electricals Ltd., Mumbai
Jyoti Mehta got a Bajaj Storage Geyser (25 ltr.) from Rajesh Electronics, an authorised dealer, on December 25, 2009. Installed on January 17, 2010, it emitted a peculiar sound while heating. Her complaint was not responded to. After winter ended in February 2010, it was used again only in October 2010. It gave an electric shock and the heating coil was damaged. Sent for repair on December 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 pressurising the company for early repair of the defective component. The company has done their job to my satisfaction."
- Jyoti Mehta
Tejpal Rohra, Mumbai V/s ICICI Bank, Mumbai
Tejpal 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 a Fixed Deposit had not been made. On contacting the bank, he was shocked to learn that the amount had 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 back from ICICI Prudential Life Insurance due to a fake Investment Policy. Also, a very special thanks to the CFBP Legal Cell."
- Tejpal Rohra
Pravinchandra Ved, Mumbai V/s State Bank of India, Mumbai
Mr. 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 it had not been cleared on October 10. The Bank said that it had been sent for clearing on October 9 but a technical problem in the Centralised Clearing Section had delayed all credits. They promised that it would nonetheless be value dated effectiveOctober10 but when it was finally cleared on October 15, this was not done, depriving him of his interest for October. After persistent follow-up to no avail, on December 5, 2009, Mr. Ved approached the CFBP which took up his case.
Our CCPC was facing technical problems; local clearing was unduly delayed from all branches in Mumbai during that period. An interest amount of Rs. 1,021/- has since been credited to the SB A/c of the complainant.
- Gen. Manager (NW1), SBI, Mumbai
Pratip Kumar Mukherjee, Kolkata V/s Hindustan Sanitaryware & Industries Ltd., Gurgaon
Mr. 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 still installed. He later learnt that this was not done correctly, despite him paying installation charges. The product gave problems from the outset but they were not resolved, even after several visits and change of parts. His requests for an upgrade by 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 of responsiveness, 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 and service 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 some time, 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 to bank'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 from appliaing for new credit cards. His credit rating was also disgraded. When he was not taken off after constant 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 dues of credit cards of four banks, I would like to inform you that the banks have responded favourably and updated 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. 5,000 as a registration fee and Rs. 30,000 as annual academic fees. The school's handwritten note and fee receipts showed the registration fee as “not refundable” but did not indicate this against the academic fees. Shortly after paying, he cancelled the admission as she got into a desired school nearby. On asking for a refund of the academic fees, he was told that they were not refundable, and it was an ICSE management decision. Even after seeing the receipts, they did not relent, and so, on August 13, 2010, he came to the CFBP which pursued his case.
We thank you for helping us in getting a refund of our tuition fees. We now request you to withdraw our complaint filed against Ramabai Paranjape Balmandir to enable us to visit them for collecting the necessary refund cheque. - Ajit V. Gole
VOLTAS LTD., MUMBAI VS JAYESH LOHANA, MUMBAI
CFBP received a complaint from Mr. Jayesh Lohana in December 2009 about Voltas Airconditioner. He had annual maintenance contract for his 2 Airconditioners. The Airconditioners were pending for repairs since Sep 2009 upon intervention of CFBP the matter has been resolved by Voltas to the satisfaction 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. Jayesh Lohana’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 he lodged a complaint with Bajaj Electricals as well as with CFBP. The matter was taken up with Bajaj Electricals 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 properly repaired. Thanks for the efforts made by you and hope I will receive the same co-operation in future also."
MR. NAROTTAM TOLA, MUMBAI VS BEST, MUMBAI
Mr. Narottam Tola lodged a complaint with CFBP in December 2009 about collection of payment twice by BEST for the Electricity Bill in July – Sep 2009. The matter was referred to BEST. Upon receipt of CFBP’s letter, BEST deputed their representative to Mr. Narottam Tola’s residence and clarified that they did not charge twice to the customer. Mr. Tola in his letter to CFBP stated that he was satisfied 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 two Burner of the stove. She lodged a complaint with CFBP. The matter was referred to Gandhimati Appliances, Chennai who immediately taken action and replaced with a brand new stove. Mrs. Elavia thanked CFBP for taking prompt action.
VORA MEDICAL PUBLICATION, MUMBAI VS SIGMA MANPOWER SERVICES, MUMBAI
CFBP 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 obtain services from them to get good staff for their firm. Sigma did not provide any candidate nor refunded the amount they collected from Vora Medical Publication.
CFBP intervened in the matter, after several correspondences the matter was settled. Vora Publications in their letter thanked the CFBP for the co-operation extended in this matter.
ALLIED LEMUIR, CHENNAI VS ANAND SRIRAM, MUMBAI
Mr. Anand Sriram engaged the services of Allied Lemuir, Chennai for transportation of their household articles and the car from Chennai to Mumbai. The car was insured for a sum of Rs.1.50 lakh when it was transported. The condition of the car was perfectly alright when it was picked up by the Allied Lemuir. However when the same was delivered to him in Mumbai, the car was damaged and subsequently Mr. Anand Sriram lodged a complaint with Allied Lemuir for claim of Rs. 6100/-. He was offered only Rs.500 by Allied Lemuir. After CFBP intervened the matter, the claim was settled to the satisfaction of Mr. Anand Sriram. Mr. Anand in his letter appreciated the CFBP for its relentless effort in trying to resolve the matter.
MR. K. JINARAJAN VS HDFC BANK
Mr. K. Jinarajan, of Thirukunnapuzha of Kerala lodged a complaint with CFBP against HDFC Bank Borivali(W) Branch regarding wrongful debit of Rs. 20,000/- from his Kottayam Branch of HDFC Bank for the loan obtained through Mumbai branch under different A/c. The matter was taken up with HDFC Mumbai as well as with Kottayam Branch on 13th Nov 2009 and the same was resolved to the satisfaction of Mr. K Jinarajan. Mr. Jinarajan in his letter to CFBP stated – “ Reference copy of your letter no. 61/3152/09 dated 13th Nov 2009 addressed to HDFC Bank, Mumbai 400 092, in connection with the above. Since the matter has been settled by HDFC, you are requested to kindly close the chapter at your end also. In the mean time I wish to thank you for your timely intervention for an early settlement of the case.”
MR. CHANDRASHEKHAR M. KUSHWAHA VS STATE BANK OF INDIA
CFBP 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 in month of April 2009 there were 7 public holidays which has resulted in delay of clearing cheques. SBI has 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 Petroleum Corporation Ltd. in July 2008. Though more than 11/2 year had elapsed he was not given the sanction for the 2nd cylinder. The matter was taken up by CFBP with Hindustan Petroleum in Oct 2009. We have received a reply from Director Marketing, Hindustan Petroleum on 20th Nov 2009 stating that the 2nd cylinder has been provided to Mr. Subash Chandra Pani on 6th Nov, 2009.
BAJAJ ELECTRCICALS LIMITED
Shri S. V. Navadkar, retired serviceman, resident of Auravgabad, purchased a Bajaj fan from the army canteen-while installing the fan, it came to his notice that the box contained wrong attachements 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.
Representatives of Herbalife International India Pvt.Ltd., visited denis khan & emid khan for a dealership to sell ther products.denis khan issued a personal cheque in the reprasentatives on the clear 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 Denis Khan had not accepted or signed the agreement. When Denis Khan asked for his refund he was refused. He even lodged a police complaint Herbalife International India Pvt. Ltd. for fraudulent businass 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 400 amps Isolators on 05/06/2003. Boving Fouress being an ISO-9001 company, BIMCO did not feel the need 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 repeated reminders 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. wrote to CFBP that they would pick up the material shortly and settle the issue. The matter was amicably solved 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 Trading Co. in April 2005. The air conditioner was not working properly since its inception. it required frequent repairs. During the course of repair, the mechanic damaged the rotating louvers of the AC. this was brought to the notice of Verma Trading Company.
Inspite of the repeated pleas by Butterfly Book to replace the rotating louvers, the company did not take action. CFBP intervened in the matter and trading co immediately took action and that matter was satisfactorily solved.
VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.
Ms. Soonu R. Mehta of Colaba, Mumbai had purchased a Videocon TV in 1998 under the money back scheme floated by Videocon. The purchase amount of Rs. 14,990/- was to be paid to Ms. Soonu Mehta 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 the refund immediately.
DUES FROM RAILWAYS
Mangalam Dairy of Kandivali had entered into a contract with Western Railway for display of Boards on Kandivali Foot over Bridge for which they paid Rs. 7153/-. The Western Railway terminated the contract in April 2004 and decided to refund the deposit to the party. However the deposit was not refunded till December 2005 by the Railways. The matter was taken up with Western Railways yielded positive 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 from Standard Chartered Bank for the Credit Card Sale Volume provided by the Petrol Pump Dealers in Mumbai. The Association while sending the complaint to CFBP also endorsed a copy to the Standard Chartered Bank. The Bank had promptly resolved the grievance and the matter was closed.
Mr. Nagesh V. Kadam, Mumbai had deposited a Cashier's Cheque of US 9,000/- on 6th Jan.05 at the Corporation Bank and got the official receipt from Bank. However he realized the cheque had been misplaced by the Bank and the proceeds were not credited to his account. The matter was referred to CFBP and upon intervention of CFBP, Mr. Kadam received the credit of Rs. 390,165/- to his account. The Corporation Bank had taken immediate steps in resolving the issue to the satisfaction of their client.
UNSTAMPED GUARANTEE CARD
Mr. S. S. Garg from Lucknow purchased a Morphy Richards Mixer Grinder from M/s. Lunknow Plastic Agencies, Lucknow in Nov. 2004. The Warranty Card issued by the Dealer did not have the address of the dealer and signature. Having unable to get any response from the dealer Mr. Garg approached CFBP. The matter was referred to Lucknow Plastic Agencies, Lucknow, who upon receiving our letter sent the Guarantee Card duly stamped and signed to the party.
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 the card 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 a highly 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 receiving CFBP’s strongly worded reprimand, taking note of the serious nature of the matter the card services department replied by the email and clarified that the said Gold card was issued at a reduced lifetime and that no annual fee would be charged henceforth. But Mr. Parekh was not looking for pacification and returned the neither activated nor used card pursued the matter to highlight the unethical sales tactics used. The services manager, credit card department acknowledge in a letter that having gone through the matter, there had been reason to be concerned and apologised for it.
CFBP had received several complaints about non-refund money collected by Videocon Iinternational Ltd., under their money back scheme introduced in 1998. One such was from Ms. Soonu Mehata from Mumbai. She had submitted all the documents required by M/s Wellington & Associates who had been appointed by Videocon International to coordinate the bond redemption process. Surprisingly, she did not hear from either. She was further distraught as there was no contact number or street address provided by Videocon whereby she could follow up with M/s Wellington & Associate in Hyderabad. She sent photocopies of her correspondence to CFBP, requesting assistance. CFBP wrote to Videocon International and the matter was resolved within a week.
MR. MICHAEL F. FERNANDES
Wrote to CFBP about a defective piece of furniture, supplied by M/s. Regal Safe Mfg. Co., which he claimed was not as per his order or the original design. CFBP corresponded with the supplier and complainant, and eventually convened a joint meeting of the parties at its office for a mutually acceptable settlement. The matter was discussed at length and resulted in the subsequent replacement 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 of goods 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 days later after the purchase. M/s. fair Deal Automobiles sent a mechanic who came and made some adjustments. 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 an unusable state for the next fortnight though it had done just 300-plus kms. Clearly harrsed, he took up the matter with M/s. bajaj Auto Ltd., Delhi, with the copy of the letter sent to CFBP. On being asked o respond by 30th September, 2004, a positive reply was received on 15/9/2004 itself, stating that the vehicle had been attended to and delivered to Mr. E.Rangrajan, with the request of speaking directly 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 by her from G.E.Countrywide on surrendering the original Security Deposit Reciept. Despite numerous calls made by her, she was unable to get a reason for the short payment and was distressed about the amount and the apathy shown by the offices of G.E. Countrywide, She sought the intervention of CFBP in the matter. On being contacted the customer service department looked into their records and 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 exactly what his daughter wanted and so it proved to be truly “God-sent.” As she excitedly left for the school the next day the proud owner of a FRP umbrella, it started raining. As she pressed the button to open the 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 it properly and returned home feeling upset and ridiculed. On being contacted, the proprietor of John’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 courier service on the same day that he called to comlain about it, but had also send him the repaired umbrella by courier service . to their credit, john’s Umbrella Mart also sent the courier charges borne by Mr. R.Sasidharan alongwith the repaired umbrella. No wonder! As it turned out, John’s Umbrella Mart 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 client in Hameerpur (U.P.) valued at Rs. 42,603/-, CFBP was asked to intervene. The parcel was dispatched on 12/4/2003. Efforts to trace the parcel were on-going and inter-departmental enquiries resulted in a thick 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. Rashmikant gangar of M/s. Om Surgicals asked CFBP's assitance in locating the missing parcel. On being contacted, the Asstt. Director Postal Services, Business Development Cell, Mumbai, promptly replied acknowledging that the enquiries revealed that the parcel had been lost, and their office had directed the 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 by HDFC Bank, Mumbai. Contrary to her telephonic conversation with a representative of the bank, she was charged a biling membership Fee of Rs. 525/-. In reply to CFBP's letter, the Customer Service Officer, HDFC Cards Division, apologised for the apparent miscommunication between the sales executive and Ms. Supriya Joshi. They thanked her for bringing it to their attention so that it was not repeated. The Bank cancelled the said credit card account as requested and reversed the membership fee 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 Account holder 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 the mobile 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 the replaced set was defective one and was not functioning properly, so Mr. Kawa refused to accept it and the same was returned to the service centre.
Mr. Kawa approached CFBP on Jan 2009 and after our intervention the matter was resolved on Feb 2009. 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 due to 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 letter from Samsung India Electronics Ltd. stating that the defect in the fridge has been rectified and is now in 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 India Ltd.
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 the cost of TV tube + tax.