Latest news with #DCDRC
Time of India
a day ago
- Automotive
- Time of India
Repair car in 45 days, consumer panel tells comapny after 5-year delay in servicing
Ghaziabad: Tired of repeated faults appearing in his brand new XUV500, Vipin Talwar approached District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) in May 2022. Now, Talwar's five-year struggle — the vehicle had been purchased in 2020 — came to an end. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now On July 25, over three years later, DCDRC directed passenger vehicle giant Mahindra and Mahindra to get the XUV500, which had been sold to the Ghaziabad resident Talwar, repaired within 45 days. Talwar had purchased the Mahindra and Mahindra vehicle from authorised dealer, Concept Automobiles Private Limited, Greater Noida, in Oct 2020. He had sought a direction to the vehicle manufacturer and the seller to return the entire cost of the vehicle, Rs 13.57 lakh, along with the insurance amount of Rs 49,191 and take back the vehicle. Mahindra and Mahindra, having its registered office in Mumbai, has now also been ordered, by DCDRC chairman, to pay a compensation of Rs 75,000 for the loss suffered by the customer when his vehicle remained out of order. In addition, the vehicle manufacturer was directed to pay Rs 5,000 as the cost of litigation and compensation for the mental agony. If all the directives are not met within the stipulated time, DCDRC — comprising chairperson Praveen Kumar Jain and members Shailja Sachan and RP Singh — ordered the company to pay at the rate of Rs 1,000 for each day of delay. Based on the inspection report furnished by engineers of the company, the commission directed the owner, Talwar to deposit his vehicle at the showroom so that necessary rectifications and repairs could be done within 45 days. "The vehicle company is directed to get the vehicle repaired within 45 days of the order at the premises of the vehicle showroom and extend the warranty by an equal period as long as the vehicle was reported to indicate a fault," the consumer commission ruled. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Appearing before the commission, Talwar said he got the first servicing in Nov 2020 and within three months noticed the 'engine failure' indication bulb glowing in the instrument cluster on Feb 20, 2021. "I immediately approached the authorised service centre, Shiva Auto Cars (India) Pvt Ltd in Ghaziabad, where they returned the vehicle after necessary corrections the next day. However, within hours, the same indicator started glowing and I had to take my vehicle multiple times for rectification but to no avail," he said while putting on record all papers related to servicing and bills. The SUV owner, Talwar said that he left his vehicle from Feb 27 to March 17 (2021) for sensor replacement, as claimed by the service centre, but again the issue remained unresolved. Appearing before the commission, a representative of Mahindra and Mahindra denied charges of deficiency in service and said no problem was found in the vehicle when inspected on Feb 20, 2021. "The customer refused a detailed inspection. Once again, on March 14, April 10 and May 20, the customer was informed about the need for a wiring change, but he took away the vehicle and started insisting on the replacement of the vehicle," the defendant's counsel informed the commission. Hearing the case ex-parte against the service centre in question, the commission said that during the hearing on Feb 14, 2023, defendant number 2, Concept Automobiles, Greater Noida, was directed to conduct an inspection of the vehicle and place its report before the commission. "The report was never produced, so defendant number 1, Mahindra and Mahindra, was directed to deploy two service engineers for inspection of the vehicle on Jan 29 and submit a report," the consumer commission noted.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Insurance co told to pay Rs 1.9L for cancelled flight
Ghaziabad: Over two years after city resident Sushil Kaul and his wife Sunita Kaul jointly filed an application, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) has directed an insurance company offering international travel insurance to pay the entire airfare to them after Air Canada cancelled its flight in 2022. DCDRC on Wednesday directed the insurance company — Care Health Insurance Limited — to pay Rs 1.9 lakh for the ticket price of $2337 calculated at Rs 82 per dollar within 45 days of the judgment, failing which the consumer would be entitled to recover the amount with an annual interest of 6% till the final payment is made. On May 31, 2023, Kaul and Sunita Kaul jointly filed the application before the commission seeking direction to the insurance company that rejected their claim despite having a valid insurance policy to cover international travel. You Can Also Check: Noida AQI | Weather in Noida | Bank Holidays in Noida | Public Holidays in Noida Now, DCDRC president Praveen Kumar Jain has directed Care Health Insurance Limited, Delhi, to pay back Rs 1.9 lakh for the flight ticket from Montreal to Ottawa. The commission also asked the insurer to pay a compensation of Rs 5,000 to the traveller for deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. Kaul informed the commission that he bought an insurance policy from M/s Care Health Insurance Limited after paying a premium of Rs 51,341 on June 10, 2022. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like My Brows Look Fuller Looking Now [See Results] NULASTIN Learn More Undo The policy was valid for 178 days to cover his US and Canada trip. Kaul said, "I booked two Air Canada tickets for July 18 for a flight from New Delhi to Montreal. The flight was scheduled to reach there at 6.20am (EST). I had the next flight for Ottawa from Montreal at 8.55am (EST). The flight left Delhi and reached Canada as per schedule, but on reaching there, I found an email from Air Canada informing about the cancellation of flight AC8001 meant for Ottawa. The airline later adjusted us for a later flight. " When he placed a claim for compensating the cancellation of the flight, he was paid $200 (Rs 16,400) by the insurance company, whereas the cost of the ticket was $2337 (Rs 1,91,634), Kaul said. Appearing before the commission, the insurance company said since the passenger was offered an alternate flight later in the day, the case was considered under the policy of flight rescheduling, accordingly, for a delay of 8 hours and 35 minutes. Maintenance for the said period at a rate of $200 was paid to the insured passenger. Having heard both sides, the commission concluded that the applicant placed on record the letter of flight cancellation issued by the airline. "The matter should not have been dealt with as a delayed or rescheduled flight as the flight AC8001 in which the traveller booked his ticket got cancelled and he has placed the letter of the airline as proof," the commission observed, declaring the insurer of committing deficiency in service.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Health
- Time of India
Insurer rejects claim citing break in policy renewal, consumer forum says ‘unjustified'
Ghaziabad: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) in Ghaziabad has directed Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Limited to pay Rs 2.1 lakh to a Bulandshahr resident after rejecting his insurance claim on what the forum called "unjustified grounds". In its order dated July 15, the commission, headed by Praveen Kumar Jain, ruled that the Chennai-headquartered insurer must pay the amount via its Ghaziabad office within 45 days. Failing to do so would attract an interest of 6% per annum until the claim is settled. The forum also imposed Rs 5,000 as litigation costs and compensation for mental harassment caused to the consumer. You Can Also Check: Noida AQI | Weather in Noida | Bank Holidays in Noida | Public Holidays in Noida The case was filed by Rajendra Prasad, a resident of Bulandshahr, who approached the consumer forum in Sept 2021. Prasad said he purchased a Family Health Optima insurance policy in 2018 that covered him, his wife Sarla Devi, and son Akshay Tomar. The Rs 5.5 lakh family floater policy, purchased from the insurer's Ghaziabad branch, had been renewed each year without fail, he said. In early 2021, Prasad was admitted to Narendra Mohan Heart Hospital in Ghaziabad with chest pain from Jan 5 to 10, followed by a second hospitalisation at Shankar Lal Hospital from Jan 16 to 21 due to high fever and complications. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The Secret Lives of the Romanovs — the Last Rulers of Imperial Russia! Learn More He spent around Rs 1.9 lakh at the first, empanelled hospital and Rs 50,000 at the second. However, Star Health rejected his claim, citing a "break in policy renewal". Prasad challenged the insurer's stand, stating that he never allowed the policy to lapse and had renewed it well in time. When served notice, the company initially failed to respond, prompting the commission to initiate ex-parte proceedings. Later, the insurer argued that the claim was rightly rejected as Prasad renewed the policy when he was already unwell. After reviewing the case, the commission concluded that this was not a valid reason to deny the claim. "The complainant was admitted on Jan 5, and even if he fell ill on Jan 3—the date of policy renewal—the policy was in force on the date of admission," the commission observed. Since both hospital stays fell within the policy's validity period, the commission held the insurer responsible for inadequate service and ordered it to settle the full claim.
India Today
2 days ago
- Business
- India Today
Why winning a consumer case in India still feels like losing
India's economy is booming, with over a billion consumers engaging in transactions daily—from grocery purchases to digital banking and e-commerce. But the very system meant to provide relief to the Indian consumer is groaning under the weight of inefficiency, poor infrastructure, and massive underutilisation.A robust framework on paperIndia's consumer protection laws are among the most progressive in the world. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and its updated new version in 2019, created a three-tier quasi-judicial system to address consumer grievances:District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) - for claims up to Rs10 lakh (now revised to Rs 50 lakh)State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) - for claims above Rs 50 lakh and up to Rs 2 croreNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) - for claims exceeding Rs 2 croreadvertisementAdditionally, the E-Daakhil portal and the National Consumer Helpline (NCH) were introduced to simplify access to justice. In theory, these systems ensure that consumers across socio-economic strata can seek timely and effective redressal. In practice, the experience is quite the reality: delay, disruption, and disillusionment Consumer Commissions across India are grappling with significant challenges:Case backlogs: As of 2024, over 5 lakh cases were pending across consumer commissions. Many cases stretch for 3 to 5 years, defeating the purpose of time-bound justice, which says maximum within 90 and understaffing: A large number of District and State Commissions operate without presidents or qualified members. This delays hearings and results in infrastructure: Courts lack proper facilities, digital systems, and administrative support. In many cases, hearings are conducted in makeshift halls without microphones, internet connectivity, or even enforcement of orders: Even when a verdict is delivered in the consumer's favour, enforcement remains weak. Businesses often ignore rulings or appeal fact remains that the Consumer Commissions were envisioned as fast-track mechanisms. But today, they mirror the delays of civil courts, with none of the enforcement by the massesIronically, while the redressal system is overburdened, it is simultaneously underused by the vast majority of Indians: Over 90% of Indian consumers do not know how to file a complaint or approach a consumer cases are filed by urban, educated, middle-class consumers. The rural poor, women, the elderly, and the illiterate rarely use formal complaint barriers, lack of awareness, fear of legal processes, and travel costs deter large sections from seeking E-Daakhil portal, launched to enable online case filing, has seen limited adoption. As of 2023, only 2% of total consumer cases nationwide were filed via E-Daakhil. The portal remains English-centric, with poor usability for regional-language users and limited mobile from the groundCase 1: The Telecom Black HoleIn 2022, a retired teacher in Pune was wrongly billed for international roaming charges amounting to 30,000. Despite raising multiple complaints with the telecom provider, no refund was issued. He filed a complaint at the DCDRC. The case dragged for two years, with 13 adjournments. Even after a favourable ruling, the company delayed compliance, forcing him to approach the 2: Insurance Mis-selling in RajasthanA tribal farmer in Banswara district was sold a life insurance policy with unclear terms. The premium was deducted from his PM-KISAN account. Unaware of the policy's details and with no documents in hand, he tried to complain but was dismissed. He never reached a consumer commission or the insurance ombudsman. NGOs later found that hundreds like him were mis-sold products, but none filed formal are consumer orders ignored?The Consumer Protection Act empowers commissions to enforce their rulings, including through penalties or arrest warrants. However, execution is rarely pursued actively due to:Lack of dedicated enforcement cellsWeak coordination with local police and administrationBusinesses exploiting appeal loopholesAs a result, consumers are often awarded compensation that never materialises."Winning a consumer case in India is like winning a trophy in a game no one came to watch. The victory is hollow if orders aren't enforced," laments a former NCDRC challengesJudicial Appointments and Tenure: Selection of commission members is often delayed due to political or administrative bottlenecks. There is no uniform standard for qualifications, leading to inconsistency in of Legal Aid: While consumer commissions were meant to allow individuals to fight cases without lawyers, complex legal procedures and resourceful corporate defendants often force consumers to hire legal without Inclusion: The push for e-filing and virtual hearings is welcome but meaningless without local internet access, digital literacy, and regional language Penalties: Businesses can appeal adverse judgments multiple times, while consumers lack the time or means to contest denials or reforms: From redressal to resolutionIf India is to revive faith in its consumer redressal system, it must address both the structural inefficiencies and the accessibility gaps:1. Fast-Track BenchesEstablish dedicated fast-track consumer benches at all levels to clear backlogs, especially in sectors like telecom, insurance, e-commerce, and real estate, where complaints are high.2. Automated Compliance MonitoringCreate a national dashboard to track compliance with orders. Non-compliant companies should face escalating penalties and be barred from government procurement or licenses.3. Consumer Ombudsman SystemSimilar to banking and insurance, introduce ombudsman services for telecom, healthcare, and education sectors to ensure quicker resolution through alternative dispute resolution like Incentivise Settlements and MediationPromote pre-litigation mediation through trained local panels. Offer financial incentives to companies that resolve complaints through alternative dispute resolution.5. Consumer Legal Aid CellsDeploy trained volunteers or paralegals at panchayat and municipal levels to help fill forms, draft complaints, and guide consumers through the process.6. Expand E-Daakhil CapabilitiesMake E-Daakhil truly multilingual, mobile-friendly, and voice-command enabled. Integrate it with WhatsApp, DigiLocker, and Aadhaar for ease of filing.7. Public Reporting of Consumer ScoresDevelop a "Consumer Justice Scorecard" for companies based on case volume, resolution time, and order compliance. Publish annually as part of the statutory Reports and made public to make an informed consumer corporate role in redressalBusinesses must also be part of the solution. Corporates should:Create internal grievance redressal teams with escalation redressal timelines and processes on their annual consumer complaint resolution reports to delayed is trust deniedIndia cannot afford a consumer redressal system that is both overburdened and underused. Trust in the marketplace is foundational to economic growth. When consumers lose faith in justice, they withdraw, accept exploitation, or disengage time has come to treat consumer grievance redressal not as a bureaucratic afterthought but as a frontline service—swift, inclusive, and responsive. Only then can India truly say it protects its consumers.(Prof Bejon Misra is a renowned authority on consumer rights in India, known for his tireless efforts in promoting consumer welfare and advocating for consumer rights. He has been instrumental in shaping consumer protection policies and raising awareness about consumer issues. Through his work, he has made a significant impact on consumer rights in India.) - Ends(Views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author)Must Watch
Time of India
6 days ago
- Time of India
Insurance firm that denied screen damage claim told to pay 75% of mobile phone cost by consumer forum
Ghaziabad: The district consumer forum has asked an insurance company to reimburse 75% of the cost of a mobile phone, along with additional compensation of Rs 5,000 to a senior citizen who had purchased additional screen damage coverage when he bought the phone. Anjana Mittal (67), a Kavinagar resident, had bought the insurance policy alongside the phone in June 2023. When the phone's screen got damaged on the day the insurance plan was expiring, she wasted no time in approaching the seller for a replacement. After being denied a replacement or repair, she filed a petition with the consumer forum in Aug 2024. On July 19, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) ruled in favour of the complainants, Anjana and her husband Vijay Mohan, directing the insurer, Zipcare Protect (owned by Infiniti Retail Limited), to pay the compensation amount within 45 days of the order. You Can Also Check: Noida AQI | Weather in Noida | Bank Holidays in Noida | Public Holidays in Noida Failing this, the consumer is entitled to claim interest at 6% per annum on the outstanding amount until final payment is made, it added. Having issued a notice to the respondent and given them time to reply, the commission finally took up the matter ex parte and concluded that since the damage to the mobile screen was within the policy period and due information was given to the insurer in time, they committed a deficiency of service by not settling the claim. "The respondent is entitled to get compensation on a 'notional basis' calculated at 75% of the cost of the mobile, which comes to Rs 50,324, and in addition, should also be compensated with a fine of Rs 5,000 for mental agony and litigation cost," the commission said. The couple, in their petition, informed the commission that they bought a Vivo X-90 (12GB, 256GB) on June 3, 2023, after paying Rs 67,099. "We were told that on paying additional Rs 6,300, the Zipcare Protect scheme would also cover any damage to the mobile screen during the policy period. But when we approached them for a replacement within the policy period, they refused to acknowledge any damage and kept refusing despite repeated complaints," the complainants said.
