‘Railways to pay Rs50,000 for fining man with waitlist ticket’
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) upheld a Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission order directing Northern Railways to pay a compensation of Rs50,000 to a waitlisted CRPF officer, Harjinder Singh.
 
Mr Singh said that he had a waitlisted AC two-tier ticket for Rajdhani Express from New Delhi to Lumding for 28 September 2002. When he approached the TC (ticket checker) at Delhi and showed him the ticket, he was told to pay Rs500 for a seat. When Mr Singh refused to pay, the TC began to harass him and asked him to get off or pay Rs3,350 penalty. He was allowed to travel after paying the penalty. Consequently, Mr Singh complained to the district consumer forum which ruled in his favour. The Railways appealed higher to the state commission and, subsequently, to NCDRC.
 
“In the circumstances, the factum of harassment and levying penalty is nothing but deficiency of service on the part of the Railways, who are liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and financial loss suffered,” NCDRC said.
 

User

Shipra Estate Told To Refund Rs19.6 Lakh to Chandigarh Resident
The UT State Consumer Forum in Chandigarh came down heavily on realty firm Shipra Estate Ltd, promoters of Capital City Chandigarh, for failing to make any progress in their project and directed it to refund Rs19,58,491, along with 10% interest and Rs60,000 as compensation and costs, to a resident of Sector 7, Chandigarh, Brij Mohan Jain.
 
Mr Jain had booked an apartment in the project on 7 May 2012, after depositing Rs5 lakh. He had also deposited instalments to make up Rs19,58,491 (25% of the total cost of the apartment).
Pankaj Chandgothia, counsel for the complainant, contended that there was no development whatsoever at the site even after two years. Mr Chandgothia accused the company of unfair trade practice. The company, in its reply, admitted that they could not develop the project due to pendency of writ petitions in the high court relating to acquisition of land for a road leading to the project.
 
The order said that the company “has claimed delay on the ground of force majeure conditions but, in the instant case, there has been absolutely no progress for around two and a half years. The company, despite knowing that there was delay and uncertainty in starting construction on the project, did not accept the genuine request of the complainant for refund. The complainant has suffered physical harassment and mental agony for which he must be compensated.”

User

Sukanya Samriddhi – Open an Account Soon
Sukanya Samriddhi Account is a small savings scheme for a girl child that was launched in...
Premium Content
Monthly Digital Access

Subscribe

Already A Subscriber?
Login
Yearly Digital+Print Access

Subscribe

Moneylife Magazine Subscriber or MSSN member?
Login

Yearly Subscriber Login

Enter the mail id that you want to use & click on Go. We will send you a link to your email for verficiation

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)