Shopkeeper pays for overcharging customer ………….Virat A Singh I TNN
This is news you can use against unscrupulous shopkeepers who overcharge you for soft drink bottles.
An Oshiwara resident has got the department of legal metrology to initiate action against a shopkeeper for asking more than the maximum retail price (MRP) printed on soft drink bottles.
I was stunned at the attitude of the shopkeeper at the Green Park Super Market. He asked me to pay Rs 24 for a 500-ml soft drink bottle that cost Rs 22; he said he had bought the refrigerator and that was why he was charging Rs 2 extra, Shahbaaz Khan said.
Khan said the shopkeeper was not even willing to give him a bill for the drinks; so he decided not to buy it at all and teach the shopkeeper a lesson instead. He contacted consumer rights activist Mohammad Afzal to understand how he could take action against the shopkeeper. He helped me file a complaint (number 473) with the control room of the department of legal metrology and I came to know that action had been initiated against the shopkeeper, Khan said.
This is a classic case where a consumer has used his rights and got the results quickly. I have also been fighting against multiplexes and other shops and establishments for overcharging customers, Afzal said. An official from the legal metrology department said the shop was raided and action had been initiated. We have taken a deposit of Rs 5,000 and summoned the shopkeeper to our office, he said.
The shopkeeper, Ashfaque, confirmed the raid and said he would be going to the legal metrology office.
(Consumers can file complaints with the LMD department on 022-22886666.)
Man wins Rs 25K compensation for companys unkept promise ………..Mayank Soni I TNN
Chakala resident Prashant Adivarekar did not get the promised free shoes voucher worth Rs 2,000 on subscription of a new mobile connection. But, unlike many others, he filed a case in the consumer court and got a compensation of Rs 25,000.
Drawn by the lucrative schemeof a free pair of sports shoesAdivarekar purchased a post-paid SIM card from Vile Parle in July 2003. He was supposed to get a free voucher on payment of the first bill; he got the bill in August 2003 and immediately paid it but did argued in court that it had records to show that the consumer had received the voucher on October 11, 2003, along with his acknowledgement. But Adivarekar denied signing any acknowledgement or receiving any voucher.
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum then observed that the receipt produced by the service-provider did not indicate how the voucher was sent (by courier, by hand or by registered post).
Forum president R D Gate the ruled: The company launched the attractive scheme to get more customers. But the opponot get the promised voucher.
The mobile firms customer care executive informed Adivarekar that there was a shortage of vouchers because of an overwhelming response to the scheme and promised to send the voucher within a month. But, despite continual follow-ups, he did not get a voucher.
To add insult to injury, he was told that records showed that the voucher had been delivered to him. Adivarekar then filed a consumer case.
The mobile service provider nent failed to honour his own terms. Not following the terms of scheme is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.
Hence the service-provider is liable to pay Rs 25,000 to the complainant for mental agony.