Category: Consumer Complaints

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh held the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) guilty of deficiency in service for causing a delay of nearly 10 years in transferring the complainant’s provident fund. The Commission directed EPFO to pay ₹50,000 as compensation along with litigation costs.

The complainant, Omesh Garg, who had an EPF account with Tech Mahindra, Pune, filed a complaint against Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) after facing prolonged delays in the transfer of his provident fund to his new account.

He applied for transfer of his PF accumulations in September 2010 through his current employer. Despite repeated follow-ups and even filing an RTI application to ascertain the status of his request, no timely action was taken by the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO). After a delay of nearly a decade, EPFO transferred ₹6,21,826 only on 16 April 2020, against a claimed amount of ₹11,07,498.

Subsequently, during proceedings, EPFO transferred additional amounts of ₹3,67,052 (April 2022) and ₹64,841 (June 2022). The complainant alleged that a further amount remained unpaid. Dissatisfied, the complainant approached the Chandigarh Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, seeking payment of the remaining amount along with interest, compensation, and litigation costs.

The EPFO admitted the delay in processing the claim but attributed it to technical difficulties and system-related issues affecting such cases. It contended that the complainant’s claim had been duly settled, and after re-examination, all eligible amounts including interest were credited to his account in phases, and therefore no further amount was payable.

The Commission observed that there was an unexplained delay of nearly a decade in transferring the complainant’s EPF amount, and the EPFO’s plea of technical difficulties was not supported by evidence, thereby amounting to deficiency in service. Regarding the alleged shortfall, the Commission held that the complainant failed to prove any remaining dues. Accordingly, the complaint was partly allowed, and EPFO was directed to pay ₹50,000 as compensation and litigation costs, failing which interest at 9% per annum would apply.

If you are facing issues with a defective product or service, use online platform like Voxya, trusted by 159k+ consumers across India. It helps consumers to get a replacement, refund, and compensation as soon as possible. If you are looking for a solution to your complaints then file a complaint now!

If you’re looking to hire a lawyer to file your case, click the given link – https://voxya.com/service/consumer-court-case

The Baramulla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has found ed-tech firm Physics Wallah Private at fault for failing to deliver promised services to a student enrolled in a NEET coaching programme, holding the company guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

In this case, Irshad Rashid Dand filed a complaint against Physics Wallah, who had enrolled his son in a NEET-2027 course titled “Pathshala 11th NEET Batch Code ANTIMA” at the institute’s Pathshala centre in Sopore, Baramulla district. Payments were made in two instalments: Rs 5,000 on April 14, 2025, followed by Rs 30,000 on April 25, 2025, bringing the total to Rs 35,000.

Despite completing the payment, the complainant alleged that his son never received access to the batch or classes. Repeated follow-ups with representatives of the institute did not yield any resolution.

The complainant further submitted that a written request seeking a refund was ignored. He also pointed out discrepancies in the receipt issued by the institute, including an incorrect address. The lack of access to the course, he argued, led to “academic loss” for his son and caused mental distress to the family.

Being aggrieved by the situation the complainant approached the Baramulla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

The commission noted that Physics Wallah did not respond to the proceedings despite being served notice. With no appearance or reply filed by the company, the forum proceeded ex parte to decide the matter based on available records.

Interestingly, the complainant told the commission that after the notice was issued, the institute began sending SMS and WhatsApp messages claiming that the student had not been attending classes and demanding payment of a second instalment. This, he emphasised, was despite the fact that the student had “never been granted access to the course.”

After reviewing the evidence, the commission observed that the institute had accepted payment but failed to fulfill its obligation of providing course access. It said that such conduct clearly constituted a deficiency in service and directed the institute to refund Rs 35,000 paid as course fees, along with Rs 50,000 as compensation for academic loss and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs.

If you are facing issues with a defective product or service, use online platform like Voxya, trusted by 159k+ consumers across India. It helps consumers to get a replacement, refund, and compensation as soon as possible. If you are looking for a solution to your complaints then file a complaint now!

If you are looking for legal advice to resolve an Education complaint

, then Talk To A Lawyer now!

The Kottayam Consumer Court held Piccolo Weddings and its owner responsible for poor service in a wedding photography contract. The mistakes caused stress to the couple and spoiled their special memories.

Very recently, a couple named Dr Ostin Oomachen and Dr Kavya Santhosh P filed a complaint against Piccolo Wedding firm. The complainants had taken photography and videography services for their wedding held on May 19, 2024. They took a package of ₹95,000, which included candid photography, cinematography, helicam coverage, albums, raw video files, wedding reels, a highlight video, and wedding story USBs. They paid ₹80,000 in total, including an advance of ₹10,000 and ₹70,000 on the wedding day.

However, the complainants alleged that several promised services were not delivered. The helicam coverage was not provided on the wedding day and no prior intimation was given, depriving them of the opportunity to make alternative arrangements. They also pointed out that key deliverables were either delayed or not provided at all, including wedding reels, while the highlight video was delivered belatedly. The raw footage and soft copies were incomplete, missing important bride-side events. They further cited serious quality issues, including poor editing, lack of continuity, omission of significant ceremonies such as “Madhuram Veppu,” incomplete coverage of the holy mass, and loss of footage due to technical errors.

Being aggrieved by the situation, the complainant approached the Kottayam Consumer Court where the commission found that the complainants had fulfilled their contractual obligations, while the service provider failed to adhere to the agreed terms by delivering incomplete and defective outputs.

Accordingly, the Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to refund ₹80,000 within 30 days, failing which it will carry interest at 9% per annum from May 19, 2024, until realisation. It also ordered the payment of ₹2.5 lakh as compensation for mental agony and ₹10,000 towards litigation costs. In case of default, the compensation amount will also attract interest at 9% per annum from the date of the order until realisation.

If you are facing issues with a defective product or service, use online platform like Voxya, trusted by 159k+ consumers across India. It helps consumers to get a replacement, refund, and compensation as soon as possible. If you are looking for a solution to your complaints then file a complaint now!

If you’re looking to hire a lawyer to file your case, click the given link – https://voxya.com/service/consumer-court-case

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, held Air India and Alhind Tours and Travels liable for deficiency in service for failing to inform the passenger of the flight cancellation.

In this case the complainant, Sohil Bhasin, filed a complaint against Air India and Alhind Tours who booked a flight ticket with Air India from New Delhi to Sharjah.

Upon arriving at Delhi Airport, the complainant found that the flight had been cancelled without prior notice. He was therefore compelled to purchase a new ticket for Rs. 6,075 after adjustment of the earlier fare. Owing to this delay, the complainant missed his scheduled meeting and consequently suffered a loss.

Aggrieved by the loss, he approached the Chandigarh District Consumer Commission, where the Commission partially allowed the complaint and held the travel agency liable, directing it to refund Rs. 6,075, pay Rs. 30,000 as compensation for mental agony, and Rs. 35,000 towards litigation costs, while dismissing the complaint against Air India. Seeking higher compensation, the complainant approached the Chandigarh State Consumer Commission.

Air India Limited accepted that the booking was made but said the refund was already given to the travel agent as per rules. It said that flight cancellations are allowed under DGCA rules and that it had informed the agent, who was supposed to tell the passenger. So, it denied any fault.

The airline also said that it had no direct deal with the passenger for refund or rebooking. Because of this, it claimed it should not be held responsible for the cancellation.

Alhind Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd. stated that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and them. They contended that the complainant had actually availed services from Alhind & Middle East Travels LLC, Dubai, UAE, which is a separate and distinct legal entity, and therefore any liability would lie with the said entity and not with them.

The State Commission held that both the airline operator and the booking agent are jointly responsible for failing to inform the passenger regarding any flight cancellation. The Commission observed that the obligation to inform a passenger about a flight cancellation cannot be assigned in a manner that absolves one party at the expense of the other. It noted that while the airline bears the primary responsibility for operating the flight and communicating any cancellations, the travel agent also owes a duty of care to ensure that the passenger is duly informed, having issued the ticket and received payment.

Furthermore, the Commission noted that both Air India and the travel agent form part of the same chain of service and have access to the passenger’s contact details and booking information.

Accordingly, the Commission modified the order of the District Commission by holding both Air India Limited and Alhind Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd. jointly and severally liable. It directed them to refund Rs. 6,075 along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as enhanced compensation for mental agony and harassment, and Rs. 35,000 towards litigation costs.

If you are facing issues with a defective product or service, use online platform like Voxya, trusted by 159k+ consumers across India. It helps consumers to get a replacement, refund, and compensation as soon as possible. If you are looking for a solution to your complaints then file a complaint now!

If you are looking for legal advice to resolve an Airline complaint

, then Talk To A Lawyer now!