Stories

The District Consumer Commission, Chandigarh, found SBI deficiency of service, as it overcharged the borrower when closing a home loan, despite the Banking Ombudsman’s recalculation instructions.

Complainant Dilbar Singh filed a complaint against State Bank of India, who took a home loan of ₹500,000 from the State Bank of India at a floating interest rate for a period of 15 years. He paid EMIs regularly through ECS.

After making payments for nearly ten years, he was informed that ₹4,57,325 was still outstanding. Upon reviewing his loan account, he claimed that the bank had charged interest at a rate higher than the agreed-upon rate. When his complaints were not addressed, he approached the RBI’s Banking Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman directed the bank to recalculate the loan account based on the applicable base rate and MCLR from the specified dates. In compliance, the bank credited ₹96,922 to the complainant’s account and issued a revised statement, showing the lower outstanding amount.

However, at the time of closing the loan on July 11, 2019, the complainant was asked to deposit ₹2,01,728 and was issued a “No Due Certificate.” The complainant stated that this amount was higher than the actual outstanding amount, so he approached the Chandigarh Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

The bank stated that interest was charged in accordance with applicable rules and that the account statement submitted by the complainant contained errors due to manual preparation, including repeated credit entries. According to the bank, these errors were subsequently rectified, a revised statement was issued, and ₹96,922 was refunded as per the Ombudsman’s order, so no additional amount was payable. The bank denied deficiency in service or unfair trade practices.

The Commission found that, following the Ombudsman’s direction, the bank had recalculated and deposited ₹96,922. The Commission also noted that the outstanding amount was ₹59,155 on June 27, 2019, which increased to ₹62,857 by July 11, 2019 (the date of loan closure). Despite this, the bank charged the complainant ₹2,01,728 when closing the loan. After examining the account details and calculations, the Commission concluded that the bank charged an excess amount of ₹41,949.

Consequently, the Commission partially allowed the complaint and directed the bank to refund the amount of ₹41,949 along with 9% annual interest from the date of recovery on July 11, 2019, and to pay ₹10,000 as compensation and litigation expenses within 60 days.

if you are unable to get any resolution from Bank even after informing them about fraud or unauthorised transactions then you should File a Complaint at Voxya.com to take legal action and approach consumer forum.

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

File a complaint now

The New Delhi Consumer court held Samsung India liable for not giving the free bezel promised with a 65-inch TV offer. Mr. Prasouk Jain filed a complaint against Samsung India who had placed an order for a 65-inch Samsung television through the official website of the opposite party after viewing an advertisement offering a discounted price along with several promotional benefits, which included a complimentary bezel and a complimentary Samsung Galaxy A03 smartphone.

After completing the transaction, the complainant discovered that the order details did not reflect the complimentary bezel. Upon inquiry, the opposite party informed him that the bezel had not been delivered because it was not manually added to the cart at the time of purchase.

The complainant repeatedly issued a legal notice but no satisfactory response was received.

Aggrieved by the refusal to honour the advertised promise, he approached the New Delhi Consumer Commission for the resolution.

In its defence, Samsung India contended that the complainant failed to follow the required procedure under the “Bundle Offer,” which mandated that the complimentary bezel be added separately to the cart while placing the order. It argued that the benefit of the offer could not be extended since this technical requirement was not fulfilled.

The Commission observed that the television had been marketed as a slim, frame-like product designed to blend with home décor, and that the bezel was essential to achieving the advertised effect. The Commission held that if a product is advertised as complimentary, the consumer cannot be expected to add it separately to the cart over and above the purchased product, especially when the promotional representation created a legitimate expectation that the item would be supplied along with the main product.

Observing that the complainant was compelled to purchase the bezel from the open market due to the failure of the opposite party to honour its commitment, the Commission directed Samsung India to reimburse the cost of the bezel amounting to ₹7,500 along with interest at 7% per annum. The Commission further awarded ₹50,000 as compensation for mental agony and ₹50,000 towards litigation expenses.

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 a Home Appliances Complaint then Talk To A Lawyer now!

In a recent case a passenger named Smt. Shashi Singhai, who was a senior citizen, suffered from poor service during long flight delay, due to which she filed a complaint against the airline Alliance Air Aviation Limited. She had booked an economy class ticket with meals from New Delhi to Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Her flight was supposed to leave at 9:50 AM. Due to a delay, the airline cancelled her first boarding pass and gave her a new one showing a departure time of 11:15 AM.

After passengers boarded the plane, the airline announced there was a technical problem. Everyone was asked to get off the plane and wait in the shuttle bus. They had to sit there for more than two hours without drinking water or access to toilets. Ms. Singhai, who is a senior citizen and diabetic, said she suffered a lot during this time.

Though Ms Singhai had paid for meals, she was not given any food, and water was given only when asked. She did not receive any help from the airline. She said she remained without food the whole day. Aggrieved by this, the complainant approached the Delhi Consumer Commission.

Alliance Air contended that the delay happened due to technical issues beyond its control. It also said the flight was diverted because of bad weather. The airline argued that the shuttle bus was not under its control and that, as per DGCA rules and its terms and conditions, it was not responsible for delays or diversions caused by special circumstances.

The Commission observed that there was no denial by the airline that passengers were made to wait in the shuttle for more than two hours. The Commission noted that even assuming there was engineering trouble in the aircraft, passengers could have been accommodated inside the airport and provided access to washrooms and basic refreshments. Instead, they were “held captive in the shuttle” without refreshment or access to public facilities.

The Commission further observed that the airline had not placed on record any document to substantiate its claim that the flight was diverted due to bad weather at Bilaspur. It also noted that there was no denial regarding the failure to provide the complainant’s pre-booked meal.

Holding that the airline had been highly deficient in providing services to the complainant, particularly considering that she was a senior citizen who had to spend the entire day without food despite having booked a meal, the Commission allowed the complaint. Alliance Air Aviation Limited was directed to pay ₹1,00,000 to the complainant within three months from the date of the order, failing which the amount would carry interest at 5% per annum until realisation.

If you have purchased a product or service and are not happy with the outcome, Voxya helps you take effective legal action against brands, all from the comfort and safety of your home.

File a complaint now

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission hold Royal Enfield and its dealer were responsible for poor service because a new motorcycle had oil leakage from the first day of delivery.

The customer bought a Royal Enfield Thunderbird 350 in 2015. Oil started leaking on the same day. Even after many repairs at the service centre, the problem continued. The customer said the bike had a manufacturing defect and asked for replacement or full refund but received no response. Aggrived by this, he filed a complaint against Royal Enfield and its dealer.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Mumbai first ordered replacement or refund with compensation. Later, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission changed this and said only the engine should be replaced.

Finally, NCDRC decided that since no expert proof of manufacturing defect was given, full bike replacement was not required. But because the customer suffered for years, the Commission ordered free engine replacement, ₹50,000 compensation, and ₹25,000 legal cost. If delayed, extra interest and monthly penalty would apply.

If you have purchased a product or service and are not happy with the outcome, Voxya helps you take effective legal action against brands, all from the comfort and safety of your home.

File a complaint now