Companies & Sectors
Vodafone To Pay Rs25,000 to Doctor for Unsolicited Calls

Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has upheld a lower court order which asked the private mobile service provider to pay Rs20,000 compensation and Rs5,000 costs to a doctor for failing to stop unsolicited commercial phone calls. Dr Ashish Gala had registered with Vodafone on the “Do not Call list”. Yet, he got calls from various companies following which he filed a complaint with the service-provider on 30 August 2008, saying Vodafone should have ensured that he did not get the calls. Vodafone argued that it was not deficient in service as, under Telecom and Solicited Commercial Communications Regulations, 2007, there is no positive obligation on it to stop unsolicited commercial calls. In fact, Vodafone said, Telephone Regulatory Authority of India did not completely and immediately stop it; and acknowledges that such communication or calls cannot be stopped entirely. SR Khanzode and Dhanraj Khamatkar, in their order, disagreed. “Deficiency in service within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) of the Act is well established as against Vodafone,” they held. 

User

Punitive Cost for Shriram Finance & Citicorp

Doctor harassed despite being on DND list

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), fined Shriram Finance Company (Shriram Finance) and Citicorp Finance (I) (Citicorp) punitive costs of Rs25,000 for inordinate delay in filing an appeal. It decided that grounds stated in the application filed by Shriram Finance and Citicorp cannot constitute sufficient cause so as to condone delay of 128 days in filing an appeal. The appeal was regarding a judgement delivered about four and a half years ago and "if such type of application for condonation (sic) of delay is allowed, then it would defeat the very object of the Act which provide for expeditious justice to the consumer.”

User

Cadbury Fined for Pin in Chocolate Bar

A consumer court in Tripura has ordered Cadbury India to pay a compensation of Rs30,000 to a complainant who found an iron pin inside a chocolate bar made by the company. The consumer purchased a Cadbury chocolate on 16 December 2011, for his three-year-old daughter and found an iron pin inside the bar when the girl tried to eat it. Subsequently, he filed a complaint before a consumer forum. The West Tripura District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, in May 2013, passed the order.

User

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)