Chandigarh Consumer Court Fines Yatra Online For Failure to Provide Direct Airline Booking

In a recent legal judgment from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, consumer Kasim achieved a favorable outcome in a case lodged against Yatra Online Private Limited. The dispute, arising from the Consumer Complaint of 2019, traces its origins back to September 26, 2019, with the final verdict pronounced on December 22, 2023.

Booking Error Leading to Travel Hassles

Kasim, the plaintiff, had arranged an air ticket for his son, Mohd. Wasim, through Yatra Online, intending a journey from Delhi to Toronto. However, an inadvertent error unfolded as Yatra Online erroneously booked a ticket for an extended route: Delhi to Madrid, Madrid to Lisbon, and Lisbon to Toronto. This unintended itinerary necessitated a Transit Visa, resulting in Kasim’s son being denied entry at Delhi Airport on the scheduled travel date of September 3, 2019.

Unsuccessful Attempts to Rectify the Situation

Despite Kasim’s endeavors to cancel the erroneous ticket and request a refund, Yatra Online purportedly reassured him that there would be no issue with the initial booking. Consequently, Kasim had to procure a new ticket costing Rs. 88,000 to facilitate his son’s travel to Toronto.

Legal Proceedings and Ruling

The legal proceedings witnessed arguments presented by both parties. Yatra Online argued that the tickets were booked offline via a call and claimed that the complainant was duly informed about the Transit Visa requirement. However, the Commission’s findings diverged significantly from Yatra Online’s claims.

Commission President Mr. Amrinder Singh Sidhu and B.M. Sharma, Members, in their verdict, remarked, “The complainant alleged booking an air-ticket for his son… However, the Opposite Party failed to provide the professional services & guidance expected from their hired services.”

Mr. Sidhu further emphasized, “It is evident that the OP neglected to offer a hassle-free and the most direct route… Clearly, they failed in properly guiding & delivering the expected services to the complainant, which were part of the service agreement.”

Ruling and Directives

Consequently, the Commission upheld that Yatra Online was culpable for a service deficiency and engaged in unfair trade practices. The ruling partially sided with the complainant, instructing Yatra Online to reimburse an amount of Rs. 56,504 to Kasim, along with an interest rate of 9% per annum from the payment date.

Yatra Online is required to comply with the ruling within ninety days of the reception of the certified copy of the order.

This significant legal judgment showcases the importance of service delivery and accurate guidance, highlighting the consequences of service providers failing to meet consumer expectations in the travel industry.

If you are looking for a solution to Yatra Complaints, File a Yatra Complaint Now!

Sambalpur Consumer Court Penalizes Toll Plaza Over Unauthorized Fastag Deduction

Consumer Court Penalizes Toll Plaza Over Unauthorized Fastag Deduction

A consumer court in Sambalpur district has taken strict action against a toll plaza situated on National Highway-53 at Barhagoda in Bargarh district. The court imposed a hefty fine on the plaza for alleged unauthorized deduction of fees from the Fastag accounts of two vehicles.

Unwarranted Fastag Deduction Leads to Legal Action

Upon hearing the grievances presented by the vehicle owners, the consumer court mandated the toll plaza to pay a substantial fine of Rs 25,000 to each of the affected parties. Additionally, an amount of Rs 5,000 for legal expenses was directed to be compensated to both vehicle owners.

Furthermore, the court ruled in favor of reimbursing the amount that had been wrongfully deducted from the Fastag accounts, adding a 12 percent interest to the reimbursement sum.

Discrepancies in Toll Collection Process

Reports indicated that the two vehicles in question did not traverse the toll plaza at Barhagoda. Instead, they veered off the National Highway before reaching the plaza, taking a left turn 200 meters earlier to connect with the State Highway leading to Tora.

Despite bypassing the toll plaza, charges were inexplicably deducted from their Fastag wallets, causing surprise and frustration to the vehicle owners. Prompted by this unwarranted deduction, both individuals approached the consumer court in Sambalpur and lodged separate complaints against the toll plaza.

Consistent Challenges Faced by Commuters

This incident is not an isolated one, as the improper deduction of funds from Fastag accounts along the State Highway, running parallel to the NH, has been an ongoing issue. Commuters have long voiced their dissatisfaction with this irregularity.

The recent verdict by the consumer court, penalizing the toll plaza for such actions, is anticipated to serve as a deterrent against such practices and safeguard the interests of commuters in the region.

If you are also looking for a solution to the consumer complaint, File a Complaint Now!

Bengaluru consumer court ordered LG Electronics and the seller to reimburse the total cost of the defective dishwasher along with interest

A consumer court in Bengaluru has held LG Electronics and its authorized seller, Girias Investment Private Ltd, liable for failing to refund or replace a defective dishwasher. The decision by the III Additional Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission came in response to a plea by E. Venkataramana, a resident of Hebbal Kempapura.

The commission ruled that the opposite parties, LG Electronics, and seller Girias Investment Private Ltd, are directed to refund the cost of the subject, Rs 56,000, with an interest rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of its purchase until realization. Additionally, they are to pay compensation of Rs 10,000 for mental agony and Rs 5,000 for the cost of the litigation to the complainant.

The complainant requested the commission to direct LG Electronics and Girias Investment Private Ltd to refund the price of the dishwasher, at Rs 56,000, with an interest rate of 24 percent per annum from December 31, 2020, until realization. The petitioner also demanded compensation of Rs 2 lakh for deficiency of service, Rs 5 lakh for mental agony, and Rs 25,000 towards the cost of the litigation, highlighting the deficiency of service and unfair trade practices.

The Commission has also instructed LG Electronics and its authorized seller, Girias Investment Private Ltd, to comply with the order within 45 days.

The complainant purchased an LG Dishwasher on December 31, 2020, and it was delivered on January 4, 2021. Within a short time, the machine started giving trouble. The complainant lodged a consumer complaint with customer care, and they attended to the issue, identifying a problem with the motherboard and advising to contact the manager. Thereafter, the complainant approached several company representatives, but to no avail.

The complainant received a legal notice on March 24, 2021. However, LG and Girias did not reply. Subsequently, until the filing of this complaint, there has been no response.

The Bengaluru bench, comprising Commission President K. Shivarama, members Chandrashekar S Noola, and Rekha Sayannavar, passed the order on November 29.

The case was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

If you are seeking a solution to a consumer complaint, file a complaint at Voxya Now! India’s trusted platform for resolving consumer complaints quickly.

Legal Victory: M.P. State Commission Rules in Favor of Railway in Theft Case

Redressal Commission’s Decision Upheld
In a recent legal development, the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Bhopal rendered a significant decision favoring the Western Central Railway Division, Jabalpur. The ruling absolved the railway from liability in a case involving the alleged theft of a passenger’s belongings. This outcome marked a reversal of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Satna’s directive, which initially held the railways responsible, demanding compensation for negligence in handling the stolen suitcase.

Case Background: Traveler’s Grievance
The incident traces back to December 11, 2008, involving Rajendra Kumar Agrawal and his wife traveling aboard the Chitrakoot Express’ AC-2 coach. Agrawal filed a complaint, attributing the theft of his suitcase to the railway’s negligence, prompting his compensation claim.

Key Arguments and Ruling Analysis
During the appeal, pivotal arguments surfaced regarding the complainant’s failure to promptly report the incident to railway personnel and insufficient evidence supporting claims of negligence. The railway authorities emphasized the passenger’s responsibility to safeguard personal belongings.

The order, delivered on November 6, 2023, by the Hon’ble A. K. Tiwari, expressed the Commission’s stance, stating, “Theft cannot be construed as a deficiency in Railways’ service. If a passenger fails to protect their belongings, the Railways cannot be held accountable.”

Commission’s Verdict and Legal References
Highlighting the absence of specific travel details and failure to substantiate negligence, the Commission referred to a significant Supreme Court judgment (Station Superintendent & Anr Vs Surender Bhola), reinforcing the passenger’s accountability for safeguarding personal items.

Consequently, the Commission overturned the previous order, dismissing the complaint and vindicating the Western Central Railway Division, Jabalpur.

This decision reiterates the pivotal role of passenger responsibility and vigilance in protecting personal belongings while traveling via railway services.

If you are also looking for a solution to the consumer complaint, File a Complaint Now!

Solving Automobile Complaints: A Guide to Resolving Consumer Issues

Are you grappling with unresolved issues regarding your automobile purchase or service? Discover effective ways to address and resolve automobile complaints, and learn how Voxya, a consumer complaint platform, assists consumers in obtaining solutions for their grievances with automobile companies.

Addressing Automobile Complaints Effectively

When faced with automobile-related issues, consumers often feel frustrated and helpless. From faulty parts to poor service, unresolved complaints can significantly impact one’s experience with a vehicle. However, there are steps you can take to resolve these complaints efficiently:

1. Document the Complaint
   The first step in addressing an automobile complaint is to document every detail. Note down the problem, including dates, times, and specific issues encountered. This documentation will serve as crucial evidence when addressing the matter with the automobile company.
   
2. Communicate Directly
   Reach out directly to the automobile company’s customer service department. Clearly articulate the problem, providing all documented evidence. Effective communication is key to ensuring your complaint is understood and addressed promptly.
   
3. Explore Legal Options
   If direct communication fails to yield results, familiarize yourself with your legal rights. Understanding consumer protection laws and policies can empower you when dealing with unresolved automobile complaints. Consider seeking legal counsel or advice from consumer protection agencies.

Voxya: Empowering Consumers in Resolving Complaints

Voxya stands as a beacon of hope for consumers facing challenges in resolving complaints against automobile companies. This innovative platform offers a streamlined approach to addressing consumer grievances:

1. File Complaints Hassle-Free
   Voxya provides a user-friendly platform for consumers to file complaints against automobile companies effortlessly. With a simple and intuitive interface, consumers can detail their grievances, ensuring a comprehensive overview of the issue.
   
2. Escalate Complaints Effectively
   In cases where direct communication fails, Voxya aids consumers in escalating complaints effectively. The platform assists in drafting effective escalation emails or letters, ensuring that complaints reach the right authorities within the automobile company.
   
3. Seek Resolution
   Voxya assists consumers in seeking a resolution by guiding them through the entire complaint resolution process. The platform ensures consumers stay informed about the progress of their complaints, working towards a satisfactory resolution.

Conclusion
Resolving automobile complaints can be challenging, but with the right approach and support, consumers can find solutions. Effective documentation, communication, and utilizing platforms like Voxya can significantly improve the chances of obtaining a resolution for consumer complaints against automobile companies. Don’t let unresolved issues dampen your automobile experience—take action and seek solutions today!

Bengaluru Consumer Court Orders Flipkart to Compensate Customer Overcharged During ‘Big Billion Sale

The recent ruling by a Bengaluru consumer court has mandated Flipkart, the leading e-commerce giant, to compensate a customer who faced an overcharge issue during the much-publicized ‘Big Billion Sale’.

Customer’s Legal Victory against Overcharging Incident

A Bengaluru resident took legal action against Flipkart after noticing an alarming discrepancy in the price she paid for a shampoo purchased through the platform during the ‘Big Billion Days’ sale. The amount surpassed the product’s Maximum Retail Price (MRP), leading to a judicial confrontation.

Court’s Verdict and Compensation Details

In a significant win for the customer, the consumer court ruled in her favor, compelling Flipkart to pay compensation totaling Rs 20,000. Furthermore, the court directed a refund of Rs 96, the excess amount charged for the product.

Judicial Criticism and Monetary Penalties Imposed on Flipkart

Dismissal of Flipkart’s defense by the court underscored the seriousness of the issue. Additionally, the court imposed financial penalties on the e-commerce giant. Flipkart was ordered to pay Rs 10,000 for service deficiency and an additional Rs 5,000 for engaging in unfair trade practices.

Emphasis on Fair Trade Practices and Consumer Rights

The consumer court’s scrutiny revealed instances of unfair trade practices, prompting stringent criticism against Flipkart’s conduct. Emphasizing fair practices, the court mandated compensation of Rs 20,000 alongside the refund of Rs 96, addressing the customer’s grievance.

Understanding Maximum Retail Price (MRP) and ‘Big Billion Days’ Sale

The Maximum Retail Price stands as the upper limit within which manufacturers or retailers can lawfully price a product. Flipkart’s ‘Big Billion Days’ is a high-profile annual sales event, purportedly offering substantial discounts across diverse product categories.

Previous Legal Reprimand on Flipkart

This incident isn’t the first instance of legal censure faced by Flipkart. Earlier this year, the Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission penalized the e-commerce giant for failing to fulfill a prepaid order promptly.

In conclusion, this legal verdict reiterates the significance of transparent pricing practices in e-commerce and advocates for consumer rights protection, emphasizing fair treatment and adherence to stipulated pricing regulations within the industry.

If you are looking for a solution to the consumer complaint, File a Complaint at Voxya Now!

Gurugram District Consumer Commission Rules in Favor of Parminder Oberoi Against Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. and British Airways

Parminder Oberoi, a Gurugram resident, filed a complaint against Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. and British Airways under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act. Her ordeal revolved around disrupted travel plans that prompted her pursuit for a refund on booked tickets.

After thorough review and consideration of evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by President Shri Sanjeev Jindal, along with members Ms. Jyoti Siwach and Ms. Khushwinder Kaur, issued a detailed order on November 17, 2023.

Expressing dismay, President Sanjeev Jindal remarked, “It is astonishing that both Yatra.Com and British Airways collaborated to deny the complainant her rightful claim.” The Commission heavily criticized the companies for their “unethical conduct,” compelling Ms. Oberoi, a 71-year-old senior citizen, to undergo considerable distress in pursuit of a fair resolution.

The Commission identified service deficiencies on the part of both Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. and British Airways for failing to refund the entire ticket amount.

In compliance with the order, both companies must jointly and severally compensate Ms. Oberoi with Rs. 59,147/- plus 9% annual interest from the booking date until payment realization.

Additional compensation includes Rs. 50,000/- for mental and physical distress, along with a deterrent compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 33,000/-.

The Commission cautioned the companies, mandating additional penal interest at 12% per annum if the order remains unfulfilled within 45 days. This serves as a stern notice to ensure timely compliance with the directive.

If you are also looking for a solution to the consumer complaint, File a Complaint Now!

National Consumer Court Finds Medical Negligence by Ranchi Doctors 20 Years After Jharkhand Patient’s Death

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDC) recently ruled a case of medical negligence against doctors in Ranchi, Jharkhand, leading to the unfortunate demise of a patient in 2003.

Unveiling Medical Negligence in Ranchi, Jharkhand

The NCDC granted compensation of Rs 10 lakh to the complainant, the patient’s mother, following its determination that doctors failed to provide appropriate treatment despite the patient’s ultrasound report confirming acute pancreatitis.

Dr. D. Mohan’s Oversight and Misdiagnosis

Dr. D. Mohan, the attending doctor, overlooked the patient initially and conducted an examination only on 07.03.2003, at 11:30 am. Relying on incomplete information from the ultrasound report, this led to a misdiagnosis. The NCDRC highlighted, “…even after identifying pancreatitis, no treatment was provided during the patient’s hospitalization,” thereby setting aside the 2018 order of a state commission.

Maya Sharma’s Fight for Justice

Maya Sharma, the grieving mother of the deceased Navin Sharma, took a stand by filing a revision petition against the Jharkhand State Commission.

Ignored Indications and Deteriorating Health

Sharma, admitted to Raj Hospital in 2003 due to abdominal pain and vomiting, underwent several examinations, including an ultrasound indicating pancreatitis. However, alleged negligence in addressing crucial aspects of the report led to Sharma’s health decline and eventual demise.

Allegations of Overlooked Diagnostic Clues

Maya alleged that the doctor disregarded a significant part of the ultrasound report, indicating ‘ascites minimal pleural effusion.’ This condition denotes excess fluid accumulation between the lungs and ribs, a critical indicator of acute pancreatitis.

Expert Opinions Validate Negligence Claims

Expert opinions from Dr. G S Vats and Dr. Samir Rai corroborated the claim of medical negligence, emphasizing the failure to diagnose acute pancreatitis despite clear indications in the ultrasound report.

Balancing Perspectives: Mortality Rates and Defense Arguments

Despite a 20 percent mortality rate associated with acute pancreatitis, the doctors defended their actions. They argued that despite their utmost efforts, they were unable to save the patient, thereby refuting any accusations of negligence.

The Hospital’s Stance and Expert Opinions

The hospital defended its position, stating that the expert opinions of Dr. Vats and Dr. Rai did not signify any deviation from professional standards or flaws in the treatment plan.

Conclusion

The NCDC’s ruling in this case sheds light on the significance of proper diagnosis and treatment in the medical field. The verdict underlines the gravity of addressing critical indicators in medical reports to prevent unfortunate consequences, emphasizing the responsibility of medical practitioners in ensuring patient care and well-being.

If you are also looking for a solution to the complaint, File a Complaint Now!

How to Resolve Defective TV, Fridge, AC, and Washing Machine Complaint at Voxya

Have you received a defective or malfunctioning TV, AC, or washing machine from the company and did not receive any repair service during the warranty period or a replacement after multiple follow-ups? Are you receiving support from customer care in the process of resolution or not getting any response from the customer care team?

What actions can you take against home appliance complaints?

Firstly, you can lodge a complaint with the company’s customer care team. If you are not receiving any support or solutions, you can send an email to the company, including a bill, support ticket number, communication proofs, service list, etc. You can also send a written complaint.

If the company is not providing a solution to your complaint, you can send a legal notice to the company through a lawyer to demand a resolution of the consumer complaint.

If your consumer complaint is not resolved after sending a legal notice, you can file a case in the consumer court to seek redressal, a refund with compensation, interest, and legal expenses.

You can also file a complaint with Voxya, India’s trusted platform for resolving consumer complaints. It helps consumers obtain replacements, refunds, and compensation quickly, trusted by over 2 Lac consumers.

If you are looking for a solution to the consumer complaint, File A Complaint Now!

How does Voxya resolve home appliance complaints?

Voxya resolves home appliance complaints using the following easy steps:

1. Social Media Campaign: It initiates a social media campaign for maximum impact on consumer complaints.
2. Send Email: Voxya sends an email to the company and attempts to resolve consumer complaints amicably.
3. Legal Notice: Voxya drafts and sends a legal notice to the company via registered post, also sending a copy to the consumer’s address.
4. Consumer Court: Voxya prepares consumer case documents which consumers can submit to file a case in the consumer court.

If you are seeking a solution to your consumer complaint, file a complaint with Voxya now!

Consumer Court Ordered BSES to Restore Electricity and Provide Compensation for Disconnecting Connection Without Notice

The recent ruling by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East) has brought clarity on the legal landscape surrounding electricity services. This case, triggered by Mr. Sandeep Sharma’s complaint against BSES Yamuna Power Limited (OP), highlights crucial aspects of rights and obligations in the realm of electricity provision.

Unraveling the Consumer Case

Mr. Sandeep Sharma, a co-owner in Vishwas Nagar, Delhi, voiced grievances over the abrupt disconnection of electricity supply from two meters on his property. His complaint underscored discrepancies in billing and an alleged lack of prior notice before the disconnection.

Key Highlights of the Judgment

Consumer Classification: The Commission upheld Mr. Sharma’s status as a consumer concerning the domestic electricity meter. However, they negated his consumer claim for the non-domestic meter, which was utilized for commercial purposes.

Disconnection Protocol and Arrears: While acknowledging outstanding dues, the Commission stressed the imperative nature of serving formal notice prior to electricity disconnection. They firmly asserted that disconnection should not occur without substantiating the existence of pending dues, aligning with the stance articulated by Shri S.S. Malhotra, President, and the Commission Members, Ravi Kumar and Rashmi Bansal.

Relief Granted: Recognizing the complainant’s consumer rights, the Commission directed the OP to reinstate electricity for the domestic meter. Furthermore, they ordered a compensation of Rs.5000 to Mr. Sharma for the service deficiency related to the domestic meter.

Shri S.S. Malhotra, President of the Commission, accentuated, “The complainant retains consumer status pertaining to the domestic electricity meter.”

Regarding the commercial meter, the Commission clarified, “The complainant is not recognized as a consumer for the non-domestic meter.”

The order explicitly mandates the OP’s compliance with restoring electricity and undertaking compensatory actions. Simultaneously, it illuminates the legal differentiations between domestic and non-domestic electricity services.

Significance of the Ruling

This ruling underscores the significance of adhering to due process in electricity service disconnections. It elucidates the pivotal role of proper notice and the validation of outstanding dues before discontinuation. Moreover, it reaffirms the distinction between consumer classifications for domestic and non-domestic electricity services, offering crucial insights into consumer rights within this domain.

Conclusion

The judgment serves as a beacon illuminating the rights and obligations in the realm of electricity services. It underscores the need for transparency, adherence to due process, and respect for consumer rights, setting a precedent for future cases involving similar disputes in the electricity service domain.

If you are also looking for a solution to the consumer complaint, File a Complaint Now!