Tejpal Rohra, Mumbai V/s ICICI Bank, Mumbai
Case: On January 18, 2010, Tejpal Rohra drew two cheques for Rs. 50,000 each on his ICICI Bank Savings account to be transferred to a Fixed Deposit account. But after some time, he found out that the said Fixed Deposit account had not been made. He immediately contacted the bank and was shocked to learn that the said amount had been transferred to ICICI Prudential Life Insurance instead, without his consent or intimation. He lodged several complaints which only yielded false assurances. Finally he approached the CFBP in November 2010.
Outcome: Tejpal Rohra got his money back. In his testimonial he said that, "I personally want to thank the CFBP staff for their kind support in getting my invested amount back from ICICI Prudential Life Insurance due to a fake Investment Policy of ICICI Bank. Also, a very special thanks to the CFBP Legal Cell."
Jyoti Mehta, Waidhan V/s Bajaj Electricals Ltd., Mumbai
Case: On December 25, 2009, Jyoti Mehta got a Bajaj Storage Geyser (25 ltr.) from Rajesh Electronics, an authorized dealer. She got the geyser installed on January 17, 2010. Soon afterwards she experienced that the geyser emitted a peculiar sound while heating. Therefore she registered a complaint with the dealer which was only ignored and not responded to. After February that year, the geyser was used only once again in October. During this attempt the geyser gave an electric shock and the heating coil was damaged. She sent for repair on December 16, 2010, only to receive it back in the same state 10 days later. Finally hassled she wrote to the CFBP on December 31, 2010, asking for help.
Outcome: Jyoti Mehta got a good servicing job offered by the dealer. In her testimonial she states that, "Bajaj deputed their service engineer who repaired the geyser. I sincerely thank you for pressurizing the company for early repair of the defective component. The company has done their job to my satisfaction."
Bhawesh Chandra Jha, Orissa V/s Royal Images Catalogue Co. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai
Case: Bhavesh Chandra Jha ordered some goods from Royal Images Catalogue Co for which paid through his credit card. The company accidently delivered the goods at the wrong address. When we brought this to their attention, they accepted that an error had been made but did not refund his money. Despite repeated follow-ups, his attempts to get his money back were futile. Left with no alternative, he brought his case to the CFBP on March 16, 2011.
Outcome: Bhawesh Chandra Jha received his money back. In his testimonial he says, "Thanks for your early response. The company has responded after you wrote to them and taken the necessary action. The money has since been refunded to my bank account."
Kailash Vasdev, New Delhi V/s Bajaj Electricals Ltd., Mumbai
Case: On September 12, 2010, Kailash Vasdev purchased a Morphy Richards Microwave Oven (30 ltr.). In February 2011, one of the safety locks on the door of the microwave snapped. Upon lodging a complaint the microwave was sent to one of the Delhi service centers for repairs. But the service center stated that the door cannot be replaced as they did not have the necessary spare part required and they would have to wait until such a time as the company sends it across. Continuous follow-ups yielded no results. Finally frustrated, Vasdev approached CFBP in April 2011.
Outcome: Kailash Vasdev finally got his microwave fixed. In his testimonial he says that, "The damaged microwave oven has been replaced by the company. This would not have happened without your intervention. Thank you for your response and interest taken in the matter."
Mohan Lalvani, Mumbai V/s Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad
Case: Mohan Lalvani purchased a Skoda Superb during December 2009. The car had frequent problems and he was not happy with its performance. A few months later when he took his car out for a spin he saw that; after slowing down to 5-10 km/hr and then re-accelerating the car underwent a major vibration before touching 20-30 km/hr. He registered a complaint with the Skoda Auto service executives, but they failed to detect the cause of this vibration and therefore the issue could not be resolved. Hence, he turned to the CFBP in March 2011.
Outcome: Mohan Lalvani got his car fixed as per his satisfaction. In their testimonial Skoda Auto India executives- Srinivas Sudhir and Nitin Dixit said, "As per the dealership feedback, the vehicle is performing to standard without any vibration when accelerating. The vehicle was reported to the dealership on May 13, 2011 for the second free service and, as per the job order, there is no complaint of vehicle vibration recorded. The necessary work was completed accordingly and the Service Manager has conducted a joint test drive with the vehicle's professional driver and it was found that it was performing normally without any concern so it was delivered to his satisfaction."
Kanta Bhakta, Mumbai V/s A Jeweller in Dadar, Mumbai
Case: On March 18, 2011, Kanta Bhakta purchased three bangles from a jeweler in Dadar. They were confirmed to be of 22 carat gold purity charged accordingly. After the purchase was made, the bangles were kept in her locker and removed only twice; for a family function and during Diwali. Bhakta came across an X-ray gold testing facility of Tanishq Jewellers who offered to check the bangles for her. She was shocked to realize that the bangles were of less than 17 carat purity. Shaken by this, Bhakta confronted the jeweler who refused to accept her claim. Finally she approached CFBP and with the help of their Legal Cell, drafted a complaint to file in the Consumer Court. A notice was sent to the jeweler giving him a last chance to settle the matter out of Court.
Outcome: Kanta Bhakta says, "The jeweler rushed to settle the matter with me and the complaint was resolved to my satisfaction."
S.V. Navadkar V/s Bajaj Electrcicals Limited
Case: S. V. Navadkar, a retired serviceman and resident of Aurangabad, purchased a Bajaj fan from the army canteen. While installing the fan he noticed that the box contained wrong attachments of blades/motor. He lodged a complaint at the army canteen but they refused to help him. Finally Navadkar wrote to CFBP asking for help.
Outcome: CFBP took up the matter with Bajaj Electricals Ltd, who promptly resolved the matter to the customer's satisfaction.
Denis Khan and Emid Khan V/s Herbalife International India Pvt. Ltd.
Case: Denis Khan and Emid Khan were approached by representatives of Herbalife International India Pvt.Ltd. to start a dealership with them to sell their products. Denis Khan immediately issued a personal cheque with a condition that the cheque will not be encashed till they accepted or signed the agreement. However the cheque was deposited and encashed before the agreement was signed. When Denis Khan asked for his money to be refunded; he was refused. His efforts to lodge a complaint with the police went in vain.
Outcome: Denis Khan was returned his full cheque amount when CFBP intervened.
Butterfly Book, Mumbai V/s Verma Trading Co.
Case: In April 2005, Butterfly Book, Mumbai purchased a Vertis Premium Split AC (1.5 ltr.) from Verma Trading Co. After its installation, the air conditioner needed frequent servicing due to the continuous trouble. During the course of repair, the mechanic damaged the rotating louvers of the AC which was brought to the notice of Verma Trading Company. Inspite of repeated complaints the company did not take any action.
Outcome: The matter was satisfactorily solved due to CFBP's intervention.
Soonu R. Mehta V/s Videocon International Ltd.
Case: Soonu R. Mehta had purchased a Videocon TV in 1998 under the money back scheme by Videocon. The purchase amount of Rs. 14,990/- was to be paid to Soonu Mehta on May 8, 2004, against the Bond Receipt issued to her. However inspite of repeated follow-ups, she did not receive the refund.
Outcome: Soonu Mehta receieved her refund in February 2005 after CFBP took up the matter with Videocon.
Mangalam Dairy V/s Western Railways
Case: Mangalam Dairy of Kandivali paid Rs. 7153 and signed a contract with Western Railway to display boards on the Kandivali station foot-over-bridge. The Western Railway abruptly terminated the contract in April 2004 and decided to refund the deposit money to Mangalam Dairy. However the deposit was not refunded.
Outcome: After the intervention of CFBP the money was promptly refunded to Mangalam Dairy in December 2005.
Nagesh V. Kadam V/s Corporation Bank
Case: Nagesh V. Kadam, Mumbai had deposited a Cashier's Cheque of USD 9,000/- on 6th January 2005 at the Corporation Bank and got the official receipt from Bank. However he realized the cheque had been misplaced by the Bank and the proceeds were not credited to his account. The matter was referred to CFBP.
Outcome: Kadam received the credit of Rs. 390,165/- to his account after the intervention of CFBP. The Corporation Bank took immediate steps to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of their client.
S. S. Garg, Lucknow V/s Lucknow Plastic Agencies, Lucknow
Case: S. S. Garg from Lucknow had purchased a Morphy Richards Mixer Grinder from Lucknow Plastic Agencies in Nov. 2004. The Warranty Card issued by the Dealer did not have the address of the dealer and signature. Garg tried to contact the Dealer and get proper details for the same but did not get a response. Finally Garg approached CFBP.
Outcome: S. S. Garg got the guarantee card stamped and signed after Lucknow Plastic Agencies.
Dinesh Parkh V/s Standard Chartered Bank
Case: Dinesh Parekh was shocked to receive a Visa Gold Card bill showing a lifetime fee of Rs. 2499. He had earlier been approached by the Visa Gold Card marketing personnel, requesting him to accept the card and was specifically told that since a Visa card was being allotted was free of charge or no joining or annual fee was applicable. He wrote a strong letter to the authorities concerned and copied the same to CFBP. On receiving CFBP's strongly worded reprimand, taking note of the serious nature of the matter the card services department replied by the email and clarified that the said Gold card was issued at a reduced lifetime and that no annual fee would be charged henceforth. But Mr. Parekh was not looking for pacification and returned the unused card pursued the matter to highlight the unethical sales tactics used. The services manager, credit card department acknowledge in a letter that having gone through the matter, there had been reason to be concerned and apologized for it.
Petrol Dealer's Association, Mumbai V/s Standard Chartered Bank Ltd.
Case: The Petrol Dealers' Association, Mumbai lodged a complaint to CFBP about non-receipt of dues from Standard Chartered Bank for the Credit Card Sale Volume provided by the Petrol Pump Dealers in Mumbai. The Association while sending the complaint to CFBP also endorsed a copy to the Standard Chartered Bank. The Bank had promptly resolved the grievance and the matter were closed.
Rajat Sheth Shah, Bilimora, Gujrat V/s Janta Stores, Mumbai.
Case: Rajat Sheth Shah from Bilimora, Gujrat, wrote to CFBP complaining about the non-despatch of goods ordered from Janta Stores, Mumbai. CFBP took the appropriate action and soon received a letter of gratitude from Mr. Rajat Sheth Shah for the prompt delivery of the goods.
Michael F. Fernandes V/s Regal Safe Mfg. Co.
Case: Michael Fernandes bought a piece of furniture from Regal Safe Mfg. Co. but was supplied a defective piece and was not as per his original order. He approached the Dealer but when nothing happened he wrote to CFBP.
Outcome: CFBP arranged a meeting and the matter was resolved between both the parties. With an additional cost Rs. 450 Fernandes received a re-placement.
E. Rangrajan, Delhi V/s Fair Deal Automobiles, Delhi.
Case: E. Rangarajan bought a Bajaj Legend NXT2 Stroke scooter on July 10, 2004. His new scooter stalled in the middle of the road just two days after its purchase. M/s. Fair Deal Automobiles sent a mechanic for repairs but the scooter stopped working on a late night after a week. Even after lodging complaints nothing was done for a fortnight. Finally Rangrajan took up the matter with M/s. Bajaj Auto Delhi and sent a copy to CFBP.
Outcome: CFBP took up the matter and asked Bajaj Auto Delhi who responded stating that the vehicle had been attended to and delivered to Rangrajan.
Shyma Nivas, Mumbai V/s GE Countrywide.
Outcome: CFBP contacted G.E. Countrywide and enquired about the case. The matter was immediately cleared up and Shayma Niwas received the amount.
R. Sasidharan from Tripunithura and John's Umbrela Mart.
Case: R. Sasidharan from Tripunithura received an umbrella as a gift from the society. He gave it to his daughter who tried using it. When she pressed the button to open the umbrella, she heard a loud click as it opened. The plastic portion on one of the bars was broken. So she could neither close nor open it properly. On being contacted, the proprietor of John's Umbrella Mart promptly replied that the complaint had already been attended too.
Outcome: John's Umbrella Mart had not only asked R. Sasidharan to send the faulty umbrella by courier service but also sent back courier charges borne by R. Sasidharan with the repaired umbrella. John's Umbrella Mart was the recipient of CFBP's Jamnalal Bajaj Award for Fair Business Practices.
Om Surgicals, Mumbai V/s Department of Posts, India
Case: Om Surgicals had asked their client in Hameerpur (U.P.) to deliver a parcel worth Rs. 42, 603 which was to be dispatched on March 12, 2003. Efforts to trace the parcel proved fruitless and Om Surgicals finally turned to CFBP for help.
Outcome: CFBP contacted the Asst. Director Postal Services and received information that the parcel had not been lost but directed to the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices who promptly sent the parcel back and paid the required fine.
Supriya Joshi V/s HDFC Bank, Mumbai
Case: Supriya Joshi was issued a Credit Card by HDFC Bank, Mumbai and contrary to her conversation was charged a membership fee of Rs. 525. She contacted CFBP to complain about the same.
Outcome: CFBP wrote to the Customer Service Division who replied with an apology and took prompt action to right the mistake.
Udaykumar Kawa V/s Fly Meridian Mobile Pvt. Ltd.
Case: Udaykumar Kawa purchased Fly handset on Sep 2008. But unfortunately the front cover of the mobile got faded and the same was sent to their service centre for the replacement of the front cover. But instead of replacing the faded cover the original hand set was replaced with another one which was defective. Kawa refused to accept it and it was returned to the service centre. Kawa approached CFBP on Jan 2009.
Outcome: After the intervention of CFBP the matter was resolved on Feb 2009 and Kawa received a brand new handset of the same model from the mobile company.
Kashi Prasad Modi V/s Samsung India Electronics P. Ltd.
Case: Kashi Prasad Modi purchased Samsung Refrigerator and within three months of its purchase the fridge started leaking spoiling vegetables stored and the overall cooling reduced. Modi approached CFBP on Dec 2008 with his complaint.
Outcome: CFBP intervened and on 5th Feb 2009 received a letter from Samsung India Electronics Ltd. stating that the defect in the fridge had been rectified.
Mahendra V. Gadpale V/s M.I.R.C. Electronics India Ltd.
Case: Gadpale had purchased a TV from Onida in 2004 and within 4 years of its purchase the TV Tube burst. When he approached Onida Customer Relation Centre, they agreed to reimburse only 40% of its original price. Dejected Gadpale wrote to CFBP.
Outcome: After several rounds of correspondence Onida has agreed to pay 50% of the cost of TV tube + tax.
Voltas Ltd., Mumbai V/s Jayesh Lohana, Mumbai
Case: Jayesh Lohana had an annual contract for 2 Voltas air-conditioners which were pending to be serviced for 6 months since September 2009. When talking to the dealer did not yield any results he finally turned to CFBP for help.
Outcome: CFBP intervened and received a letter from the dealer saying, "In reference to your letter bearing ref. No. 61/3380/09 dated 3rd Feb 2010, regarding Mr. Jayesh Lohana's complaint, we are happy to inform you that the complaint has been satisfactorily resolved."
Bajaj Electricals Ltd., Mumbai V/s Rajesh Gupta, Delhi
Case: Rajesh Gupta had purchased a steam iron from Bajaj in Feb 2010. He lodged a complaint that the iron was defective and sent a copy of the complaint to CFBP.
Outcome: Rajesh Gupta received a repaired steam iron and his testimonial wrote, "I made a complaint on 07/03/2010 and also on 18/3/2010 and at last my steam iron is properly repaired. Thanks for the efforts made by you and hope I will receive the same co-operation in future also."
Narottam Tola, Mumbai V/s BEST, Mumbai
Case: Narottam Tola complaint to BEST for charging him twice for his Electricity bill for July-Sep 2009 and sent a copy to CFBP.
Outcome: CFBP wrote to BEST who immediately sent a representative to explain Narottam Tola about the misunderstanding. Tola wrote back to CFBP thanking them for their help and stating the he had not been charged twice but there was just a misunderstanding.
D.P. Elavia, Mumbai V/s Gandhimathi Appliances Ltd., Chennai
Case: D.P. Elavia had purchased a Butterfly Gas Stove from a shop in Mumbai and had a problem in the two burner of the stove. She lodged a complaint with CFBP.
Outcome: CFBP referred the matter to Gandhimati Appliances, Chennai who immediately took action and replaced with a brand new stove. Elavia thanked CFBP for taking prompt action.
Pravinchandra Ved, Mumbai V/s State Bank of India, Mumbai
Case: Pravinchandra Ved had deposited a high value cheque of Rs. 3,50,280.00 in his SBI Vile Parle (West) Branch Savings Bank A/c on October 8, 2009. He was surprised to find that it had not been cleared on October 10. The Bank said that it had been sent for clearing on October 9 but a technical problem in the Centralised Clearing Section had delayed all credits. They promised that it would nonetheless be value dated effective October 10 but when it was finally cleared on October 15, this was not done, depriving him of his interest for October. After persistent follow-up when nothing happened Ved finally approached CFBP on December 5, 2009.
Outcome: The interest amount was credited to Ved's account. In his letter to CFBP the General Manager (NW1), SBI, Mumbai wrote, "Our CCPC was facing technical problems; local clearing was unduly delayed from all branches in Mumbai during that period. An interest amount of Rs. 1,021/- has since been credited to the SB A/c of the complainant."
HDFC BANK, MUMBAI V/s MS. SUPRIYA JOSHI
Outcome: CFBP recieved a complaint from Ms. Supriya Joshi with reference to a Credit Card issued to her by HDFC Bank, Mumbai. Contrary to her telephonic conversation with a representative of the bank, she was charged a biling membership Fee of Rs. 525/-. In reply to CFBP's letter, the Customer Service Officer, HDFC Cards Division, apologised for the apparent miscommunication between the sales executive and Ms. Supriya Joshi. They thanked her for bringing it to their attention so that it was not repeated. The Bank cancelled the said credit card account as requested and reversed the membership fee levied. Ms Supriya Joshi in her letter to HDFC Bank (a copy of the letter was sent to CFBP) expressed her appreciation in prompt action taken in "setting the matters right." Being an Account holder of HDFC Bank she also said that "I trust that HDFC Bank Management, whom i hold in high esteem, will be scrupulous in following good business practices."
Kaushik Ganguli, Kolkata v/s HDFC Bank, Kolkata
Case: Kaushik Ganguli had availed of the HDFC Credit Card Festive Season Offer which enabled him to convert his festive purchases into EMIs. This was valid from October 1 to December 31, 2011. He registered for it with HDFC Customer Care but, despite completing the formalities, the conversion was not made. He took it up with the Bank many times but the offer was still not honoured. So, on December 28, 2011, he approached the CFBP.
Outcome: “Thank you for following up. Finally, they agreed to make the conversion.” - Kaushik Ganguli
Talesara Electricals, Udaipur v/s Voltas Ltd., Mumbai
Case: Talesara Electricals are dealers in Voltas products and had sent two brand new stabilisers to the company’s Jaipur office for replacement. However, in return, they received two very old pieces that were defective and had lots of scratches. They brought this to the company’s notice immediately and kept pursuing the matter but no avail. Left with no alternative, they registered a complaint with the CFBP on September 19, 2011.
Outcome: “The complaint has been resolved to the satisfaction of the customer.”
Smita Ankadawala, Mumbai v/s Akbarallys, Mumbai
Case: Smita Ankadawala used to supply aroma candles to Akbarallys store at Flora Fountain from October 2008. Everything went well until December 2008 but from December 27, 2008, no payment was made for the goods she had supplied. Her outstanding payment s ran up to Rs. 12,494 and her best efforts to recover the amount met with no success. Frustrated by the lack of response, she wrote to CFBP during May 2010.
Outcome: Your timely intervention has helped me in getting payment for my unsold stock and previous outstanding bills.
P. Mohanan, Mumbai v/s Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai
Case: P. Mohanan bought a Bajaj Electricals food processor on September 4, 2011 but it stopped working soon after. The person who came for the demo phoned the Service Centre which somehow made the processor functional once more but the next time it was used, it emitted a smoky smell and thunderous noise. Several calls to Customer Care resulted in no action and hence, the case was brought to the CFBP on October 10, 2011.
Outcome: We are pleased to inform you that this complaint has been resolved.
Jyashree Ballakrishnen, Chennai v/s Eureka Forbes Ltd., Mumbai
Case: Jyashree Balakrishnen owned an Aquaguard Integra 7 water purifier and wanted to change its filters. She contacted the Eureka Forbes Customer Care Centre but was told that the filters were out of stock. She continued to call the Centre for two weeks but each time, she was given the same response. Unable to resolve her grievance, she decided to bring her case to the CFBP and so, she sent her complaint on October 28, 2011.
Outcome: Kindly refer to Mrs. Jyashree Ballakrishnen’s complaint. Her request for change of filters has been completed.
Nandakumar Kudva, Mumbai v/s HDFC Bank, Mumbai
Case: Nandakumar Kudva had been a customer of HDFC Bank from 2008. In October 2011, he enquired on-line at apnapaisa.com about an auto loan to purchase a Chevrolet Beat Diesel LT car. He was contacted by Ms. Arpana of Sai Wheels & Marketing, an agent of HDFC Bank. He decided to avail of a loan of Rs. 3 lakhs for three years and was given the loan estimate on October 31, 2011 with an interest rate of 11% and an EMI of Rs. 9,732 (1 advance payment + 35 arrears). Processing fees were waived and he was only asked to pay stamp duty (approx. 0.024%). Based on his acceptance, his documents such as ID proof, address proof, income tax returns, etc. were collected on the same day. He also paid the stamp duty of Rs. 720 through a cheque which was cleared on November 2, 2011. Nandakumar Kudva was shocked when, almost 10 days later, on November 10, 2011, he received a call from Mr. Suhas of Sai Wheels & Marketing stating that he had to pay four EMIs amounting to almost Rs. 39,000 upfront along with processing fees of approx. Rs. 4,500. When he protested, he was told that, since interest rates had increased, he would either have to pay the EMIs upfront or else his EMI amount would increase. The company also said that they were unable to deliver what had been offered by their own agent and could not be held accountable for what had been promised by their executive. Exasperated, he came to the CFBP on November 14, 2011.
Outcome: We have satisfactorily resolved Mr. Kudva’s complaint and the same has been confirmed by him.
MR. JAMES ANTHONY RODRIGUES, MUMBAI v/s TATA INDICOM, MUMBAI
Case: Mr. James Anthony Rodrigues purchased a Tata Walky and a Tata Photon Plus for a total amount of Rs. 2498/- from an authorized dealer Sky Net Telecom. One of the representative from Sky Net Telecom visited the Complainants residence and convinced him that the Photon Plus which he was giving was a corporate version and is faster than the normal one and if he purchase the Photon Plus then the walky was provided free of cost but he have to pay only the TRAI charges. He handed over the Xerox copies of PAN Card, Driving Licence and Senior Citizen Card along with the Customer Application Form to the representative on 10/1/2012. On 18/1/2012 he received the Walky and the Tata Photon Plus from Sky Net Telecom and soon the instruments were activated. On 30/1/2012 Mr. Rodrigues received an SMS on his walky saying ‘your address could not be verified and the walky as well as the Photon Plus were deactivated immediately’. After complaining many times there was no concrete action taken from the opposite party. Due to deficiency in service Mr. Rodrigues asked for a refund and surrendered both the instruments. He lodged his complaint at CFBP on 19/3/2012.
Outcome: I refer to your letter reference no. 61/4685/12. I take this opportunity to thank you very much for your efforts in having redressed my grievance. I have attached the copy of the letter received by me on the 24th of April 2012 from the Nodal Officer Meenal Iyer of Tata Teleservices Ltd giving me the full refund for the device amount for both the connections.
MR. KAMAL ROY, NEW DELHI v/s BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD., MUMBAI
Case: Mr. Kamal Roy approached CFBP with his complaint regarding faulty Morphy Richards Electric Kettle Voyager 300 which was still under warranty. After complaining the kettle was taken for repairing and was brought back with the broken kettle lid. Refused to accept the broken product the same was taken back again for repairing. Even after following up many time the complaint remained the same. Mr. Kamal Roy wrote to CFBP on 27/2/2012.
Outcome: Kindly refer to your letter no. 61/4702/12 regarding Morphy Richards Electric Kettle Voyager complaint. We are pleased to inform that this complaint is resolved and close the complaint at your end.
MR. KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, MUMBAI v/s HOUSEFULL INTERNATIONAL LTD., MUMBAI
Case: Mr. Krishnankutty Nair ordered a sofa cum bed from Housefull International on 10/12/2011 by reading the advertisement in the Mumbai Mirror dated 10/12/2011. The same was delivered on 12/12/2011 and Mr. Nair came to know that the sofa cum bed is of substandard quality and also made a lot of noices. Even after sending the brand new sofa for repairing the problem remained the same. The sofa cum bed was still unusable. Mr. Krishnankutty Nair asked the Houseful International either to replace or refund the money. As there was no positive reply from the Housefull International Mr. Nair registered his complaint online at the CFBP website (www.ccrc.in) on 5/3/2012.
Outcome: I thank you for your intervention with respect to my complaint regarding the sofa cum bed I bought from Housefull International Ltd. The company has replaced the faulty sofa cum bed with a new one on April 5, 2012.
Mr. Vimal Sanghavi, Mumbai Vs Haier Appliances (India) P. Ltd, New Delhi
Case: CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response. The complainant wrote: “Thank you for your immediate action to my above mentioned complain. I have been in touch with Mr. Umesh, who has been very co-operative and customer friendly, after knowing the whole issue he has got the unit repaired under warranty. The issue has been resolved amicably and therefore request you to kindly close the case”
Outcome: CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response. The complainant wrote: “Thank you for your immediate action to my above mentioned complain. I have been in touch with Mr. Umesh, who has been very co-operative and customer friendly, after knowing the whole issue he has got the unit repaired under warranty. The issue has been resolved amicably and therefore request you to kindly close the case”
MR. AMITABH BHATTACHARYA, BANGALORE VS EUREKA FORBES LTD., MUMBAI
Case: CFBP received a complaint from Mr. Amitabh Bhattacharya regarding defective Aquaguard Total VUO purchased by him during August 2011 by paying an amount of Rs. 17,000/-. The machine was stopped working since last 6 months. No of complaints were lodged but the problem remained the same. He then lodged his complaint at CFBP on 26/4/2012. CFBP took up the matter with Eureka Forbes-
Outcome: “Kindly refer to the complaint of Mr. Amitabh Bhattacharya. His request is resolved.” - Seema Avhad , Customer Care, Mumbai_30/4/2012
MR. FARID KHAN, MUMBAI VS M/S. SHREEDHAM BUILDERS, MUMBAI
Case: Mr. Farid Khan approached CFBP with his complaint regarding Non-registration of his individual agreement by the builder Mr. Ajay Maheshwari. It was a redevelopment project in Oshiwara, Mumbai. In May 2010 the old building was demolished and thereafter new building work was started. Mr. Khan approached the builder several time with his complaint. The builder failed to even take cognizance of the same. Mr. Khan had also paid the Stamp Duty for the flat on 4/12/2010 and according to the law the registration should be done within 4 months period i.e. 3rd April 2011. Mr. Farid Khan approached CFBP on 4/3/2011. After taking up the matter with the builder the agreement got signed on 24th May 2011 i.e. after the due date of Stamp duty which was 3rd April 2011. Though the delay was occurred from the builder’s part, he refused to pay the penalty amount. Mr. Khan didn’t wanted to drag his complaint more paid the paid the penalty on stamp duty and got his registration done.
Outcome: CFBP have come to know that there are many such people/ tenants whose individual agreements have not been registered by the builder. “If You Take Any Action Against Me, I Will Stop Your Payment” is the slogan of the builder Mr. Ajay Maheshwari. As a result the tenants are feared of going against the builder.
MR. TAPISH MATHURIA, PUNE VS HDFC LIFE, MUMBAI
Case: Mr. Tapish Mathuria had applied for HDFC life Click to Protect life insurance plan online on 9-Feb-2012. He submitted all the required documents and photo by 19-Mar-2012. From then on, he have been following with HDFC life to issue the policy. They used to tell him that he would be called for medical. He got a call from them once in April 2012, and they told him to go for medical and said they would send the address of the medical center through email, but he didn’t receive any email. Since then, he was following with HDFC life to cancel and refund his money with interest. As there was no positive reply from the HDFC Life Mr. Nair registered his complaint online at the CFBP website (www.ccrc.in) on 15/5/2012.
Outcome: “We have accepted the cancellation of the aforesaid proposal from Mr. Tapish Mathuria. Accordingly, the receipts issued under this proposal stand cancelled and amount of Rs. 9938/- was transfer to Mr. Tapish Mathurias’s bank account on June 14, 2012 thru online.” - Mr. Ajit Surve, Customer Service Dept_18/6/2012
MS. R.SUBHASHINI, CHENNAI VS EUREKA FORBES LTD., MUMBAI
Case: CFBP received a complaint from Ms. R. Subhashini regarding the poor service for her Aquaguard Robot Model. The machine was under AMC and the service team was not fixing the defect completely. On identifying the problem i.e. the motor in the machine has to be changed took a long follow up to get it replaced. When the motor was fixed it stopped working from the day one itself. She then lodged her complaint at CFBP on 18/5/2012. CFBP took up the matter with Eureka Forbes-
Outcome: “Kindly refer to the complaint of Ms. R.Subhashini. Her request is resolved.” - Seema Avhad , Customer Care, Mumbai_24/5/2012
MS. RIYA BHAMBHANI, PUNE VS EUREKA FORBES LTD., MUMBAI
Case: CFBP received a complaint from Ms. Riya Bhambhani regarding the poor service for her Aquaguard I- Nova. She was entitled for 4 free services annually, but no one was coming for any service. Even after contacting the service centre for several time no one was turning up. She then lodged her complaint at CFBP on 7/6/2012. CFBP took up the matter with Eureka Forbes-
Outcome: “Kindly refer to the complaint of Ms. Riya Bhambhani. Her request is resolved.” - Seema Avhad , Customer Care, Mumbai_8/6/2012
R.MUTHUKRISHNAN, BANGALORE VS EUREKA FORBES LTD., MUMBAI
Case: Mr. Muthukrishnan purchased an Aquaguard Totol Duo Water purifier on 7/3/2012. During April 2012 there was a leakage in the bottom of the water purifier. After contacting the Bangalore office a lot of time a service engineer came and said that some parts have to be replaced with new one and will come the next day for the same. But no one turned up. He then lodged his complaint at CFBP on 12/6/2012. CFBP took up the matter with Eureka Forbes-
Outcome: “Kindly refer to the complaint of Mr. R. Muthukrishnan. His request is resolved.” - Seema Avhad , Customer Care, Mumbai_20/6/2012
MR. MANISH PATNI, GUWAHATI VS EUREKA FORBES LTD., MUMBAI
Case: CFBP received a complaint from Mr. Manish Patni regarding the poor service for his water purifier. Even after the machine being under 3 years service contract his service request was not attended. Despite calling the service centre several times the problem was not attended and the only words spoken was will send the person today. He then lodged his complaint at CFBP on 6/6/2012. CFBP took up the matter with Eureka Forbes-
Outcome: “Kindly refer to the complaint of Mr. Manish Patni. His request is resolved.” - Seema Avhad , Customer Care, Mumbai_8/6/2012
MS. ZARINE R. VAZIFDAR, MUMBAI VS IFB, MUMBAI
Case: Ms. Zarine Vazifdar purchased an IFB Washing Machine from Vijay Sales on 3/2/2010 on an assurance that it would be under warranty for 48 months. On 30/6/2012 the machine refused to stop and hence he made a complaint at the call centre and got the assurance that the complaint will be addressed within 24 hours. The technician came from IFB on 2nd July and said that the Timer was faulty and will replace it the next day. Nobody turned up after that. Ms. Zarine lodged the complaint at CFBP on 16/7/2012.
Outcome: “ Thank you for your prompt action regarding my problem with I.F.B. They took action after your intervention. I sincerely appreciate the services of your organization. - Ms. Zarine R. Vazifdar - 24/7/2012
Mr. Antony Bertie Morais, Chennai VS Numeric UPS, Chennai
Case: Mr. Antony Bertie Morais purchased a Numeric 600ex model UPS on 19/4/2010 having a warranty of 2 yrs. From February 2012 the UPS stopped working. He lodged a service request to Numeric UPS on 27/2/2012. Even after several calls and follow ups his complaint was not getting resolved. The complaint will be resolved today, tomorrow, spare not available etc. was the response from Numeric UPS. He then lodged his complaint at CFBP on 12/4/2012.
Outcome: Thank you CFBP the problem has been resolved. They changed my ups. - Mr. Antony Bertie Morais – 9/8/2012
Mr. Rajsekhar Dabburi, Mumbai vs Bharti Telemedia Limited, Mumbai
Case: Mr. Rajsekhar Dabburi ordered two Airtel DTH connection on 27 Jan 2012 and he was promised that it will be delivered the next day. Inspite of several calls, nothing was delivered. After several follow-ups, they agreed to refund on 14 Feb 2012. But till date i.e 16 May 2012 the refund was not yet processed and he lodged a complaint at CFBP.
Outcome: “I have received the refund from Bharti Airtel and it was possible only with CFBP's support as they were not even reverting to my several follow-ups including calls. Many thanks to you and CFBP for the excellent job you are doing to protect the interest of the consumers, much appreciated.” - Mr. Rajsekhar Dabburi – 6/8/2012
Mrs. Sukhbir K. Kandhari, Mumbai vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai
Case: Mrs. Sukhbir Kandhari was operated at Hinduja Hospital on 23/9/2010 for bilateral non palpable breast lesion. He submitted his claim amounting to Rs. 96400/- along with necessary papers to the insurance company. After a long follow up with the agent, on 20/9/2011 a cheque of Rs. 72074/- was received by Mrs. Kandhari i.e. a delay of 363 days by deducting 25% of claim amounting to Rs. 24025/-. Mr. Kandhari lodged his complaint at CFBP during May 2012 for the remaining claim amount.
Outcome: “Thank you for pursuing our recovery of mediclaim with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and Raksha TPA. I received the sum of Rs. 24025/- by cheque no. 977987 dated 21/8/2012 by HDFC Bank” – Mr. & Mrs. Kandhari – 29/8/2012
Mr. Ramshankar B. Pal, Mumbai VS Alladein Care (Okaya Power Ltd)
Case: Mr. Ramshankar Pal purchased an inverter with battery from one of authorized dealers of Okaya on 9/8/2010 with a warranty period of 30 months. Recently from two months the battery was not functioning so he filed a complaint with the dealer on 13/6/2012. The serviceman advised him to replace the battery. M/s. Alladein Care, Okaya Battery provider told him that the battery would be replaced within 7days from the date of service request and as per their instructions he returned the battery to the dealer. After that there was no response either from dealer or from Alladein Care. Mr. Ramshankar registered his complaint at CFBP on 26/7/2012.
Outcome: “We had close and solve this battery replacement issue and apologies for delay.” - Mr. Rohit Kumar, Asst. Manager Service – 13/8/2012
Mr. Inqlab Hussain, Srinagar vs HCL Store
Case: Mr. Inqlab Hussain purchased an android online course from HCL Store on 7/6/12 by internet banking. The payment and order was duly acknowledged by HCL vide email. Since then the company was not responding to any of his queries for delivery of the product. As there was no positive reply from the HCL Mr. Hussain registered his complaint at the CFBP on 28/7/2012.
Outcome: “Thanking you for your interest and action in the matter I am happy to inform you that the said course was delivered to me by HCL and so the matter may be considered to have been amicably settled between myself and the company.” - Mr. Inqlab Hussain – 22/8/2012
Mr. Ashish Kankar, Navi Mumbai VS Reliance Communication, Mumbai
Case: Mr. Ashish Kankar took one connection of Reliance CDMA mobile on 29th August 2012. Even after submitting the documents so many times to retailer as well as Reliance Web World the connection was not activated. Lodging the complaint in Reliance did not activated the connection. Mr. Kankar then lodged his complaint at CFBP on 10/10/2012.
Outcome: “With response to your mail, checked the service and is already active.” - Mr. Richard Rao, Appellate Desk, Mumbai – 29/10/2012
Mr. Swapnil Jangid, Mumbai VS Chemistry, Mumbai
Case: Mr. Swapnil purchased a pair of pants from the Chemistry store at the Oberoi Mall. The garment may be of a very old stock got damaged within a month of its purchase. Mr. Jangid went to the store for refund of damaged garment. But they refused to provide a refund but a credit note instead. Mr. Jangid refused to accept the Credit note. He lodged a complaint a CFBP on 21/9/2012 for the refund.
Outcome: “Thank you so much for looking into the matter and addressing it at such a fast pace. Chemistry is giving me the full refund of my money. I am very grateful to you for showing concern.” - Mr. Swapnil Jangid – 10/10/2012
Mr. Rishabh Jain, New Delhi VS Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd., Amritsar
Case: Mr. Rishabh Jain placed an order of Aakash tablet (Ubislate 7+) with Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd. in December 2011 by paying an amount of Rs.2999/- through cheque debited from his account on 24/3/2012. Datawind failed to deliver the Tablet on time. On complaining their reply said that the Tablet will be delivered after next 15 days and this went on for more than 2 months. As there was no action from Datawind Mr. Jain registered a complaint at CFBP on 26/7/2012.
Outcome: “I would like to inform you that the matter has been resolved and the Device has been delivered to Sh. Rishabh Jain on 31st Aug 2012.” - Mr. Parminder Singh Bhullar, Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd – 10/10/2012
Mr. Anil Kumar Saxena, Noida VS Voltas, Mumbai
Case: Mr. Anil Kumar Saxena purchased a Voltas Vertis Plus Air Conditioner on 17/5/2011. During servicing by a Voltas technician he broked the front cover lock of the Air Conditioner. Mr. Saxena requested Voltas either to replace or repair the same since it was happened from their technician. As there was no concrete action taken from Voltas, Mr. Saxena lodged his complaint at CFBP on 27/9/2012.
Outcome: “Thank you for your intervention M/s Voltas Company immidiately responded and rectified my Voltas Airconditioner,which was pending since long” - Anil Kumar Saxena – 30/10/2012
Mr. Ritesh Raman, Navi Mumbai VS HDFC Bank, Mumbai
Case: Mr. Ritesh Raman applied for a HDFC Credit Card on 8/9/2012. As per the bank guidelines it normally takes 10-15 days for the issue of credit card to a customer. Even after sufficient days there was no reply from the bank. The application process carried was very slow. Mr. Raman lodged a complaint at CFBP on 24/9/2012.
Outcome: “We confirm that we have reviewed the queries expressed by the customer regarding the status of his credit card application bearing reference number 12090718224310W1. A detailed response confirming that the application approved and credit card dispatched to his mailing address has been sent to the customer vide our e-mail dated 28.09.2012. In view of the above, we request you to treat the complaint as clarified.” - Antony K, Senior Manager - Customer Services, Credit Cards – 29/9/2012
Mr. Sushant Das, Chennai VS Eureka Forbes Limited, Mumbai
Case: Mr. Sushant Das re-installed his water purifier in Chennai on 3/5/2012 and after few months of its usage the machine stopped working. The machine was under AMC and even after lodging several complaints nobody turned up. Mr. Das lodged his complaint at CFBP on 24/10/2012. CFBP took up the matter with Eureka Forbes-
Outcome: “Kindly refer to the complaint of Mr. Sushant Das. His request is resolved.” - Seema Avhad , Customer Care, Mumbai_27/10/2012
Mr. Thomas Xavier, Mumbai VS Eureka Forbes Limited, Mumbai
Case: Mr. Thomas Xavier is using the Eureka Forbes Vaccume Cleaner and on 22/8/2012 he lodged a compliant through phone to the Eureka Forbes service centre for non-working of machine. The service person visited his place and conveyed that the motor has to be replaced and the same will be done within a week. Even after so many follow ups by Mr. Xavier nobody turned up after that. On 29/10/2012 Mr. Xavier lodged his complaint at CFBP.
Outcome: “Kindly refer to the complaint of Mr. Thomas Xavier. His request is resolved.” - Seema Avhad , Customer Care, Mumbai_30/10/2012
Mr. Udaychand Rai, Mumbai VS M/s. First Step Shoes, Mumbai
Case: Mr. Udaychand Rai had purchased a pair of Bata Sandal for his son from M/s. First Step Shoes on 1st July 2012. After a few days the sandal’s sides came off. He brought the sandal to the dealer and asked for a refund but was told that it would be repaired and given. Mr. Rai when went to collect the sandals, he was told that the sandal is not fixed as Bata’s repair department has not started. He went to the shop number of times but there was no positive response. On 7/8/2012 he lodged a complaint at CFBP.
Outcome: We took the matter with the Proprietor, as a result Mr. Rai received a full refund for the defective shoe.
Mr. Yogesh Chaurasia, Kalyan VS Datawind Innovation Pvt. Ltd, Amritsar
Case: Mr. Yogesh Chaurasia placed an order for Ubislate 7c Smartphone Tablet by paying an amount of Rs. 4498/-. He wished to upgrade his order from Ubislate 7c to Ubislate 7c+, but no one from Datawind was replying to his upgradation request mail. Despite calling the Customer Care number of times no one picked his call. Mr Chaurasia sent a request mail to Datawind stating if the product ordered is not delivered within their promised time, provide a refund and also registered a complaint at CFBP on 3rd Oct 2012.
Outcome: “The refund was asked by the customer and the same has been done and confirmed by undersigned on phone on 15.12.12 @13.15hrs on his cell” - Parminder Singh Bhullar, Manager Legal _ 2/1/2013
Mr. Juzer Makda, Rajkot VS Eureka Forbes Ltd, Mumbai
Case: Mr.Juzer Makda purchased a Vaccum cleaner on 24/1/2011 and very soon the product started giving problem to him. Despite repeated services and repairs the product was way off the satisfactory mark. The local dealership failed to address the issue to his satisfaction. Mr. Juzer then registered his complaint at CFBP on 29/10/2012. CFBP took up the matter with Eureka Forbes-
Outcome: “Kindly refer to the complaint of Mr.Juzer Makda. His request has been resolved.” - Seema Avhad, Customer Care, Mumbai_1/11/2012
Ms. Pinky Goswami, Guwahati VS Reliance Communications, Mumbai
Case: Ms. Pinky Goswami recharged her number with Rs. 1500/- which gave her 12 GB of 3g data for 90 days and she also got a confirmation for the same. One day all of sudden her balance got deducted and was not able to access the internet. When she contacted the customer care, they said that the balance was deducted because she used internet. But she had used only 1GB of the 12 GB and she still had 11 GB data and almost 70 days or more for the validity to expire. As there was no positive response from the Customer Care she registered a complaint at CFBP on 13/12/2012.
Outcome: “The grievance that I registered regarding the data usage has been resolved.” - Ms. Pinky Goswami_26/12/2012
Mr. Kishore Bandaru, Jamshedpur VS Idea Cellular, Jamshedpur
Case: Mr. Kishore Bandaru was transferred by his company to Jamshedpur, hence he wanted to discontinue with his Idea Cellular mobile services and cleared all his dues. He requested to Idea Customer Care for cancellation of mobile connection. The Customer care told him to visit the Korba, Chattisgarh office for disconnection which was not feasible for him. As there was no satisfactory response from Idea Cellular Mr. Kishore Bandaru registered his complaint at CFBP on 14/10/2012.
Outcome: “Reference to your mail and further to previous communication, would like to confirm that the services to # 9165013101 have been disconnected dated 26/Oct/2012. - Nodal Officers Desk_30/10/2012
Mrs. Chand Mehta, Mumbai VS Mahanagar Gas Limited, Mumbai
Case: Mrs. Chand Mehta had applied for piped gas connection with MGL vide an application dated 5/5/2012 and a cheque amounting to Rs 6000/- was issued. The company representative visited her residence for fixing the connection. When she found that the connection would result into breaking of a tiled structure which needed major repairs afterwards, she requested Mahanagar Gas to cancel her application and refund the deposit amount. The MGL was avoiding refund of deposit money, though they have made promise to do so, four times. Every time they give false promise to pay in one and half month/ one month. Frustrated with their response she wrote to CFBP on 18/11/2012.
Outcome: “This has reference to your letter regarding the refund of security deposit paid by Mrs. Chand Mehta. On receipt of your letter the matter was investigated at our end, and we are please to inform your good self that the refund cheque was dispatched to the registered address of Mrs. Chand Mehta on 07/12/2012. We regret the inconvenience caused in the entire matter.” - Sachin Dhawan, Chief Manager-Marketing_12/12/2012
Mr. C Amarnath, Bangalore VS a2zShopping Limited, New Delhi
Case: Mr. Amarnath had ordered 10 gm gold coin and paid the whole amount using his HDFC bank credit card at their online store on 22nd July 2012. They did not delivered the order inspite of so many follow ups. On 4th Dec 2012 they sent an email stating that the product has been delivered but the product never reached the Complainant. As there was no positive response from a2zShopping Limited Mr. Amarnath registered a complaint at CFBP on December 2012.
Outcome: “Thanks for helping me in this matter. I want to let you know that I have now received this product. Please close this complaint. Thanks for your help again.” - Mr. C Amarnath
Mr. Swebert Antony Dmello, Karnataka VS Bank of Baroda, Karnataka
Case: Mr. Swebert Antony Dmello made a transaction to his friend’s account but the money was not transferred to his account but the same was deducted from Mr. Antony’s account. There was no reply from the bank when the transaction was brought into their notice. Mr. Dmello registered a complaint at CFBP on 16/12/2012.
Outcome: “I have received the money and thank you for the concern” - Mr. Swebert Antony Dmello _7/1/2013
Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Gorakhpur VS State Bank of India, Gorakhpur
Case: Mrs. Sandhya Singh took a SBI-REALTY-HOME LOAN which started from 16/04/2012. The bank was charging 0.25% extra interest from Mrs. Singh for the following periods – PERIODS INTEREST RATE OF RBI SBI CHARGE INTEREST RATE 16/04/2012 to 22/04/2012 10.50% 10.75% 20/08/2012 to 20/09/2012 10.25% 10.50% 20/09/2012 to till date 10% 10.25% As there was no response from bank to her request to rectify the interest rates, Mrs. Sandhya Singh registered a complaint at CFBP on 16/10/2012.
Outcome: “My heartiest THANKS for your positive action taken. Overall it is satisfactory action been taken by SBI” - Mrs. Sandhya Singh_8/11/2012
Mr. Subodh, Pune VS Eureka Forbes Ltd, Mumbai
Case: Mr. Subodh owns an Aquaguard water purifier. The filters of the purifier was replaced which had to be done periodically, but this time during replacement old filters were used by Eureka Forbes which came to his notice a little later. Mr. Subodh logged a complaint with Eureka Forbes and even after 1 month did not receive any response from them. He then registered his complaint at CFBP on 6/11/2012. CFBP took up the matter with Eureka Forbes-
Outcome: “Kindly refer to the complaint of Mr. Subodh. His request for change of filters has been resolved.” - Seema Avhad, Customer Care, Mumbai_19/11/2012
Mr. Naga Cheithanya M, Hyderabad VS Reliance Communications Limited, Mumbai
Case: Mr. Cheithanya recharged his mobile on 7th dec 2012 with an amount of Rs. 26/- which enabled him to send local and national SMS at a cost of 1paise but his SMS’s were charged Re. 1. He logged his complaint regarding overcharging to Reliance but they didn’t take any action to solve his grievance. As there was no positive response from Reliance Mr. Cheithanya registered a complaint at CFBP on 16/12/2012.
Outcome: “This is with reference to your letter and subsequent telephonic conversation had with customer’s Reliance number regarding SMS pack benefit issue. Kindly note that the SMS pack of Rs. 26/- has been activated in customer’s account. The customer’s issue has been resolved.” - Authorized signatory, Customer Care_28/12/2012
Mr. Abhishek Datta, Bangalore VS HT MINT, Bangalore
Case: Mr. Abhishek Datta had subscribed for 399 Mint offer on 07.10.12 and got a promise that newspaper delivery would start in 7days and coupons will be delivered in 15 days. However after several follow ups, the newspaper delivery started after 1 month on 07.11.12. Even after 2 months of booking and several calls and mails to customer care Mr. Datta did not received his coupons. Frustrated with their response he wrote to CFBP on 13/12/2012
Outcome: “I have received the coupons today, Thanks” - Mr. Abhishek Datta_26/12/2012
Mr. Abhinaya Thulasirajan, Tamilnadu VS eBay India Pvt. Limited, Mumbai
Case: Mr. Abhinaya Thulasirajan bought an Idea netsetter from eBay on 27th Sep 2012 which also had a free gift of 8GB pendrive and the same was not delivered with the main order. He lodged his complaint at eBay and sent many mails for the free gift but there was no response from them. Frustrated with their response he wrote to CFBP on 13/02/2013.
Outcome: The complainant wrote back to CFBP: “Sir my complaint is resolved today thank you so much for your help ....people who dont respond even after 100calls called me thrice to solve this issue all these were possible becoz of your help only i got the free gift today thank you once again sir......” - Mr. Abhinaya Thulasirajan
Mr. Ramen Kumar Phukan, Guwahati VS Datawind Innovations Pvt Ltd, Amritsar
Case: Mr. Ramen Kumar Phukan booked a Ubislate 7+(Aakash Tablet) through internet on 4/4/2012 from Datawind Innovations Pvt Ltd and also paid the full amount through cheque debited from his account on 19/6/2012. Datawind failed to deliver the product on time as a result Mr. Phukan sent many mails reminding Datawind to deliver the Tablet. Datawind replied by giving false promises of delivering the Tablet, but it was not sent. Left with no alternative he registered a complaint at CFBP on 8/2/2013. CFBP wrote to Datawind and got the complaint resolved.
Outcome: The complainant wrote back to CFBP: “After a long long wait, recently I have received the Datawind's Ubislate Tablet. It's a good one and I am satisfied over it. Thank you for your kind co-operation” Mr. Ramen Kumar Phukan
Mr. Sadashiv Desai, Mumbai VS Rediff Shopping, Mumbai
Case: Mr. Sadashiv Desai ordered a Tyre gauge from Rediff Online on 15th Jan 2013 but the product dispatched differed from the one described on the Rediff site. Mr. Desai wrote to Rediff customer support a number of times to replace the product but nothing was done. As there was no positive reply from Rediff he lodged his complaint at CFBP on 25/3/2013. CFBP wrote to Rediff and got the complaint resolved.
Outcome: The complainant wrote back to CFBP: “Rediff Shopping refunded my money as they could not arrange product replacement and Thank you for your support” - Mr. Sadashiv Desai
Mr. Muthalagan A, Chennai VS Bharti Airtel Ltd, Chennai
Case: Mr. Muthalagan recharged online for Rs. 34/- which gives a benefit of sending 100 local + National SMSes. As soon as he received the recharge message from Airtel he started sending SMSes in group for which an amount of Rs.60/- got deducted from his main balance. The complainant wrote to Airtel about this. When no action was taken despite his constant follow up with Airtel he turned to the CFBP. CFBP wrote to Airtel to resolve the matter.
Outcome: Airtel forwarded a mail to CFBP written to the complainant: “We would like to inform you that an amount of Rs. 61/- has been credited in your account for deduction of sms charges. The same will reflect in your account within 1 hrs. We regret for the inconvenience caused to you in this regards” - Anitha M, Nodal office, Bharti Airtel Ltd
Mr. Keshab Lahan, Assam VS Aircel (Dishnet Wireless Ltd), Assam
Case: Mr. Keshab Lahan is a consumer of Aircel Telecom provider Assam. For few weeks he was being wrongly charged for some services like value added services(VAS), RM-News, Weekly COSMOS plan etc. which he had never opted/activated. Several calls to Customer Care resulted in no action and hence, the case was brought to the CFBP on 8/3/2013.
Outcome: Response from Aircel “With reference to your e-mail dated 14-03-2013, we would like to inform that as per the telephonic conversation with Mr. Keshab Lahan VAS service "BEDTWCL,VCHATN40 and MCAASMM” has been deactivated on 15-03-2013. Assuring you the best of our services at all times.” - Aircel Customer Care, Dishnet Wireless Ltd.
Mr. James Rodrigues, Mumbai VS NBS International Ltd, Mumbai
Case: Mr. James Rodrigues purchased a Mahindra Scorpio on 23/4/2008 through NBS International Ltd and ever since, the vehicle was serviced at their workshop. On 22nd of January 2013, he gave his vehicle for servicing. The AC was functioning perfectly when he handed over the vehicle to their workshop. At the time of taking delivery Mr. Rodrigues, found that the Fan Blower was not working. The Electrician told that the Fan Blower and Resistor were burnt and has to be replaced. Mr. Rodrigues made the payment for the same (Rs. 4634.00) through his credit card. He found it strange as there was no work pertaining to the Air-conditioning that was required to be done. He sent emails to NBS International Ltd on 3rd February and 15th February 2013 in this connection which was acknowledged as read by them but there was no response from their end. So on 19/2/2013 he approached CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “Today I have just received cheque no. 010077 dated 08.03.2013 drawn on Standard Chartered Bank for Rs. 4634/- from Mr. Rajesh Jagtap (Mobile No. 9987527008) -NBS International Ltd. Mahindra & Mahindra, Reayroad. Thank you for all your help and intervention in the above matter.” - Mr. James Rodrigues
Mr. Hemant Bharote, Madhya Pradesh VS Ibhejo, Mumbai
Case: Mr. Hemant Bharote ordered an Apple iphone from Ibhejo.com. When the product arrived he found that the piece was defective. He complained to Ibhejo regarding the same and asked for refund. They assured that the money Rs. 11000/- will be refunded within 14 days. More than 20 days passed there was no response from Ibhejo. Left with no alternative he registered a complaint at CFBP on 29/4/2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “Thank you very much for this help. After I contacting you Ibhejo return my refund within 3 days.” Mr. Prashant Sarawade, Nashik Vs Rediff Shopping, Mumbai
Mr. Prashant Sarawade, Nashik VS Rediff Shopping, Mumbai
Case: Mr. Prashant Sarawade ordered a Sony Xperia Neol L mobile from Rediff.com but the product dispatched was defective. He returned the defective mobile back to Rediff Shopping and asked for a replacement. As there was no positive reply from Rediff he lodged his complaint at CFBP on 28/4/2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “Yesterday rediff sent me replacement of my product. Thank you for the help.”
Mr. Aaftab Akbar Patel, Mumbai VS Institute of Clinical Research, Mumbai
Case: Mr. Aaftab had completed his final year B.E. (Production) and was awaiting for his result. He approached ILAM which is part of ICRI in the month of June 2011 to enquire about their 2 year MBA(Logistics) course. After enquiring Aaftab told that he will be approaching again after the result. The ICRI person told him that the seats are limited to about 40 and gets filled up very fast. After a week ICRI person called him and said that only 3-4 seats are left and that he should immediately come for admission with a cheque of Rs. 50000/- towards admission fee. Aaftab took the admission and the course was about to start in July 2011. While taking the admission he clarified that if he fails to clear his B.E. he could clear it in the next attempt along with the course and if any problem arose admission fee would be refunded. In the first week of September 2011 his result came and unfortunately he failed in 2 subjects. His MBA course started in the 3rd week of September. He paid Rs. 1.00 lacs towards the 1st installment, once he started attending the college. By the end of October 2011 Aftab was called to the office and handed back his cheque of Rs. 1.00 lac and told that his admission stands cancelled as he did not clear his B.E. Thereafter he kept on following up with the Institute for the refund of admission fee vide written requests and personal visits, but they have no intention of refunding the money. Aaftab lodged a complaint at CFBP on 12th Feb 2013.
Outcome: CFBP took up the matter with the Institute and the complaint got resolved. The Complainant received a refund of Rs. 50,000/- and thanked CFBP for the speedy recovery of money.
Mr. Salauddin Ansari, Howrah VS Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd., Amritsar
Case: Mr. Salauddin Ansari booked a Ubislate 7c+ on 8th July 2013 from Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd. and paid the full amount for the same. Datawind failed to deliver the product on time. As there was no positive reply even after follow ups he lodged his complaint at CFBP on 13th July 2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “My problem is Sort-out, so please close the complain against the related party. Thank you for the help”
Dr. Devi Prasan, Kerala VS TTK Prestige Ltd., Bangalore
Case: Dr. Devi Prasan purchased an Induction Cooktop of TTK Prestige. Soon after its purchase it arose some problem and had to give for servicing. The cooktop was given for servicing on 24/6/2013 and was assured to return back after servicing on 28/6/2013. Since no-one turned up from the service centre Dr. Prasan lodged a complaint at CFBP on 3rd July 2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “Thank you for your support. The problem has been solved”
Ms. Paramjot Kaur, Haryana VS Myntra.com, Bangalore
Case: Ms. Paramjot Kaur ordered 3 items from Myntra.com on 21st June 2013 of which only one item was delivered to her. The other two items were not delivered and the delivery status of these items were updated as 'delivered' on Myntr.com. The courier company forged the signature of recipient which was sent to her as a proof of delivery. She called Myntra several times and everytime she was assured that the complaint will be resolved in 3 days, very soon etc. Since they were not taking any concrete action she lodged a complaint at CFBP on 24th July 2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “The product value of Rs. 232.05 has been credited to Ms. Paramjot Kaur Myntra.com account and the same has been activated. The complaint has been resolved from our end”
MS. MADHVI SHARMA, LUCKNOW VS IFB INDUSTRIES LTD, GOA
Case: Ms. Madhvi Sharma was using IFB industries washing machine which stopped working during July 2013. She lodged a service request on 28/July/2013 for which a mechanic came for inspection and stated that the PCB has to be replaced and he will replace it within 2 days. Even after a month no one tuned up from IFB. Disappointed with their service she registered a complaint at CFBP on 22/8/2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “We have resolved the customer complaint which was forwarded by your team and the customer is satisfied now”
MR. MUKESH VERMA, MUMBAI VS MAXX MOBLINK PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI
Case: Mr. Mukesh Verma purchased a Maxx Mobile Model # MSD7Bar 2.4 on 11/6/13 from one of their retailer M/s. Ambika mobile from Santacruz, Mumbai. Within a month its speaker started giving problem so he took the mobile to the service centre for repairing on 8/7/13 and was assured delivery within week’s time. More than 2 months passed, the mobile was still lying with the service centre. He also lodged a complaint at company’s registered office in Goregaon, Mumbai but nothing happened. He lodged a complaint at CFBP on 27/8/2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “We would like to intimate you that your handset under complain is been repaired, please collect the same from the service centre as soon as possible and withdraw the complaint registered at CFBP”
MR. DHANRAJ CHAKRABORTY, AHMEDABAD VS SUNFLAME ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD, FARIDABAD
Case: In the month of August 7th 2013 Mr. Dhanraj Chakraborty purchased a Sunflame shakti star 2 burner gas stove from Shree Ashapura Kitchenware, Ahmedabad. As they were shifting to new house he connected the gas stove on September 2, 2013. There was leakage from the burner and the pipe of the gas stove and also from the choke (on and off button). After lodging the complaint a mechanic came and put some solution on the button of the gas and assured that once the solution is dried the leakage will not happen. Leakage started the very next day. The retailer refused to replace the product saying that the Sunflame servicecentre can only replace it and he will not take back the product. Mr. Chakraborty contacted the service centre again and asked for replacement. They assured, by Sep 17 the product will be replaced. As there was no response from the service centre after the assured date he contacted their Head office but all in vain. Fed up with the follow up he lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “At last, today (20/9/2013)at 12:30 PM the service man of Sunflame visited our house to look into the matter and replaced the gas stove. Thank you for all your Support”
MS. RACHNA SUNDER, MUMBAI VS IFB INDUSTRIES LTD, GOA
Case: Ms. Rachna Sunder bought an IFB Convection Microwave Oven 20SC2 on 24.2.13 from Vijay Sales. Within 5 months the timer suddenly stopped working. She complained to the Customer service of IFB. The person came home and said that there is a spark coming in the oven and she should not use it at all. A new part will be installed for FREE as this is an absolutely new machine and well within warranty. From then she was continuously in touch with IFB, they were mentioning that the part is coming especially for her machine from Germany and now she have to pay for the part. Ms. Rachna lodged a complaint at CFBP on 11/9/2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “Confirmed with customer (Mr. Sunder) Complaint is resolved...MWO has been replaced with the new piece and it is working fine”
MR. RAJESH, VISAKHAPATANAM VS SUN DIRECT TV (P) LTD, SECUNDERABAD
Case: Mr. Rajesh had subscribed for a particular package from Sun Direct and it is valid upto Feb 24th 2014. He had taken the new connection 3 months back but since last 3 weeks he is not able to view half of the channels of the pack. He had been giving customer care complaints from last 20 days. But no action was taken inspite of his repeated requests. Mr. Rajesh lodged a complaint at CFBP on 20/9/2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “Due to your help and interest my problem was solved yesterday (23/9/2013). There were numerous calls from Sun direct. Their personnel attended to the problem immediately and solved it. Thank you very much and please close the complaint”
MR. AJITH KUMAR, TAMILNADU VS BHARTI AIRTEL LTD, TAMILNADU
Case: Mr. Ajith Kumar had requested for the conversion from postpaid to prepaid. His postpaid sim was de-activated as per the terms and conditions, but his prepaid sim was also not activiated as per the norms. Frustrated with the technical negligence in handling the customer he lodged a complaint at CFBP on 14/9/2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “The matter is resolved, thank you for the attention”
MR. SAHIL CHARAYA, BANGALORE VS STAR CJ ALIVE, MUMBAI
Case: Mr. Sahil Charaya ordered a product from Star CJ Alive on 19th May, 2013. When he received the product it was broken. He applied for a replacement, but even after 3 months the product was not replaced. He then applied for order return and refund and dispatched the product back. A month passed still no signs of refund and neither was he contacted by Star CJ. Mr. Sahil lodged a complaint at CFBP on 12/9/2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “The issue has been resolved; I have got the refund, Thank you”
MR. ASHVIN BARSHINGE, MUMBAI VS TATA TELESERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI
Case: Mr.Ashvin Barshinge purchased Tata photon plus no. 9223132151. Huawei EC 156 on 6th June 2013. He faced a connectivity problem and complained to Tata Docomo photon plus. An engineer visited his residence to check the network signal problem. The engineer stated that there is a problem of network signal in his residential area which cannot be resolved. So he requested for a refund of the deposit amount Rs. 1299/-on 10/6/2013 and surrendered the Tata photon plus usb instrument at same gallary from where he purchased and also put a cancellation request. Even after following all the formalities he started getting bills from Tata Docomo instead of a refund. Despite several calls and emails clarifying his part nothing happened. Mr. Ashvin lodged a complaint at CFBP on 20/8/2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “I received refund of Rs.1299/- dated 8th September 2013 with cheque no.024116 from TATA teleservices limited. I am thankful for your kind support. I hope I shall continue this cooperation in future too”
MR. SUSHIL KUMAR DUBE, BHOPAL VS DATAWIND INNOVATIONS PVT. LTD., AMRITSAR
Case: Mr. Sushil Kumar Dube had booked Ubislate+, a tablet computer with Datawind Amritsar and had sent a cheque dated 19.3.2012 amounting to Rs 2999/- which was acknowledged by Datawind vide their e-mail dated May 8, 2012. After that on every reminder they gave an assurance which was never fulfilled. Last luring assurance was given on September 29, 2012 stating that an improved device will be sent within 72 hours with an extra charge of Rs. 500/- on delivery. He agreed to that too, but even after passing 72 hours the device was not sent. Despite several e-mail reminders sent by Mr. Dube there was no response from Datawind. He lodged a complaint at CFBP on 9/7/2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “I have since received the tablet from Datawind on July 22, 2013. I am sorry for informing late. At the same time I am so grateful to CFBP Coucil for taking up the case with Datawind and getting me the tablet after more than one and a half year of booking”
MR. RALPH MENEZES, MUMBAI VS KARBONN MOBILES, NEW DELHI
Case: Mr. Ralph Menezes bought a Karbonn A9+ from Flipkart on 11th January 2013. It worked till 11th April 2013 and then stopped working. Even the power was not coming on. He made several complaints to Karbonn and even FLipkart. He took it to service it at a Karbonn authorised service centre in Fort, Mumbai and the person told him that they do not service mobiles sold from Bangalore. He tried to make complaints with Karbonn but they neither responded to his calls nor replied to his emails. He then gave his phone to another Karbonn service centre in Dadar Mumbai on 18th May. Every time they would say that they have not finished servicing his phone as the part is to be replaced and the same is coming from Delhi. Frustrated with their service he registered a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response from Karbonn.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “With reference your complaint, we would like to inform you that we have communicated with the customer and complaint has been resolved.”
MS. RADHIKA SHARMA, GURGAON VS SNAPDEAL.COM, NEW DELHI
Case: Ms. Radhika Sharma purchased a mobile Micromax, A101 amounting Rs.9999/- from Snapdeal.com and the same was delivered to her on 5th May 2013. After the delivery of the mobile phone she opened the parcel and checked the functions/features of the mobile phone. However, she was shocked to note that the video recording functions were not working properly. The exact problem with the device was that a sound like beep was constantly coming in each video that was recorded even when there was no sound in the environment. She immediately brought the matter to company's notice through e-mail as well as through telephone. One of their representatives visited her residence and took over the mobile phone with the promise that either the mobile phone would be replaced or the error would be rectified within the period of three days. The company acknowledged the receipt of the product and assigned a complaint ticket number and assured her that their team would get back to her very soon. Thereafter they stopped answering her phone calls and e-mails. 3 months passed, there was no response from Snapdeal. Left with no alternative she registered a complaint at CFBP on 30th July 2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “Thanks a lot! :) It is only because of your mail, which you sent to the snapdeal.com, that I have been able to get my money back. Immediately after receiving your e-mail their official contacted me and got ready to refund my money which was stuck since so long. Thank you so much”
Ms. Poonam Bhalla, New Delhi VS SimplySizzle.in, New Delhi
Case: Ms. Poonam Bhalla booked two bags from the online portal www.simplysizzle.in and made the payment online using her credit card on 3rd Oct'13. As the order was not delivered within the promised date she tried reaching them on phone but no one picked the phone. Even multiple emails were not responded to. She lodged a complaint at CFBP on 20/11/2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “We have already processed the refund however due to a typo error the refund was unsuccessful however we have spoken to Ms. Poonam and sent a new cheque of refund to her yesterday only and its been resolved from our end. My sincere apology for the delay in refund.”
Mr. Ashish Sangra, Jammu & Kashmir VS Reliance Communications Limited, Jammu & Kashmir
Case: Mr. Ashish Sangra have been using Reliance number since December, 2009 having CUG actived on his number since then. His calls to CUG group were free. Now since few days his calls to the CUG group were being charged. When he called the customer care, they said that his CUG is not working now so the calls are being charged. There was answer from Reliance about why without any intimation via any sms or call the service was stopped. Mr. Ashish asked for reimbursement of the amount which got deducted from his balance. As there was no positive response from Reliance he lodged a complaint at CFBP on 3/11/2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “Adjustment of dispute Amt of Rs. 80 has been posted in customer A/c. A screenshot is attached for refrence and it’s been resolved from our end.”
Ms. Mahek Karigar, Mumbai VS Maxx Moblink Private Limited, Mumbai
Case: Ms. Mahek Karigar bought a Maxx ax5 mobile from snaldeal website. Within 2 months of use the mobile had to sent to the service centre for repair. She submitted the mobile in Bandra gallery where they kept it for one and half month and finally her mobile was handed back to her but again the handset was facing same problem then finally she called Maxx mobile customer care and they told her to submit the mobile to Dadar services centre. She submitted the same on 08-Nov-2013. Again one and half month passed there was no feedback the service center. They kept on promising 2 to 3 more days, call after one week etc. Fed up with the follow up Ms. Mahek Karigar lodged a complaint at CFBP on 19/11/2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “We would like to intimate you that your complain is been resolved and your handset is ready for dispatch. So kindly collect the same and acknowledge the receipt of the same by withdrawing the complain from CFBP as soon as possible.”
Mr. Veer Singh, Amritsar VS 100bestbuy.com, Bangalore
Case: Mr. Veer Singh ordered Two HP V165 16GB Flash Drive from 100bestbuy.com. The consignment was delivered to him on 18th February, 2013. But when he opened the consignment there was only One HP V165 16GB Flash Drive. He registered the complaint so many times. On dt. 21-03-2013 he received a mail from 100bestbuy.com that your order is in process and will deliver your product as soon as possible. But nothing happened. He lodged a complaint at CFBP on 20/11/2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “It is to your kind notice that we have refunded the amount of the above customer through online, and this issue remains resolved from our end once he receives the same.”
Mr. Athmanathan S, Chennai VS Zopo Mobiles Private Limited, Delhi
Case: Mr. Athmanathan ordered a ZOPO ZP980 mobile phone with ZOPO on 20.08.2013 through their online site "www.zopomobiles.in". Full Payment of Rs. 19,599/- was made with Order no TEQKW18341. They committed to deliver the phone in 7 working days but it was not delivered till Oct`13. Due to delay he cancelled the order and waited for more than 20 days for refund. 20 days passed but there was no response from ZOPO for refund. He lodged a complaint at CFBP on 14/11/2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “We would like to update you regarding the Customer Mr. Athmanathan S .Money has been refunded and communication sent to the customer and the complaint is resolved from our end.”
Mr. Rahul Nalavade, Pune VS TATA Teleservices Limited, Pune
Case: Mr. Rahul Nalavade had initiated a Port-out request to transfer his Tata Docomo number to Vodafone on 9th Nov 2013. He submitted all the documents to Vodafone and they forwarded the request to Tata Docomo for approval. However Tata Docomo did not finished the porting request until his UPC code got expired on 24th Nov and also didn't inform anything to him and directly closed the request. So he again contacted Vodafone to re-initiate the porting request with UPC code TZ135351 (Tata Docomo SR NO 390338005) on 27th Nov. Now again everything was processed properly by Vodafone. On 28th Nov, Tata Docomo rejected his SR 390338005 saying that there is an outstanding balance on his account. Even after paying the entire outstanding amount the port out request was not processed. Mr. Nalavade lodged a complaint at CFBP on 29/11/2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “My complaint has been resolved and no has been ported successfully. Thanks CFBP for your support.”
Ms. Mamta Chandrababu, Haryana VS FLY Mobiles Private Limited, Haryana
Case: Ms. Mamta Chandrababu gave her mobile in FLY mobile Panipat service centre for repairs. Even after many days there was no response from the service centre. When she contacted Fly mobile customer care they also told to contact Panipat service center. Fed up with the follow up she lodged a complaint at CFBP on 22/1/2014. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “Thanks for your support and we appreciate for your efforts and I am happy to inform you that the fly company returned our mobile with new parts.”
Mr. Ravindra Gujar, Pune VS Lava International Ltd, Mumbai
Case: Mr. Ravindra Gujar had purchased a Xolo mobile on 13-10-13. Within 3 days of its purchase the handset started giving problem, so he lodged a complaint at their customer care. The phone was picked back from his home by Fedex Courier, and committed 10-12 days for phone repair. But 21 days passed, still his phone was not repaired. Fed up with the follow up Mr. Ravindra Gujar lodged a complaint at CFBP on 6/11/2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “I have recieved new handset from Xolo (Lava International). Thank you very much.”
Ms. Chaitanya T, Chennai VS 100bestbuy.com, Bangalore
Case: Ms. Chaitanya placed an order in 100bestbuy.com for a Pen Drive on 16th September 2013. After 9 days i.e on September 25th 2013 she received a confirmation mail and her order was delivered on September 29th. Ms. Chaitanya found that 100bestbuy has delivered a wrong product. She ordered a SanDisk Cruiser Fit 16 GB Model but they have sent her San Disk Cruiser Witch 16GB Model. After making email communication and making phone calls to customer care, she was told to send back the product and they will sent her the correct one. She sent the product back on October 1st through Professional Courier and the same got delivered on October 4th. More than 20 days passed instead fake promises, there was no sign of 100bestbuy redressing his grievance. She lodged a complaint at CFBP on 29/10/2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “In response to complain no.0006926/13 by one of our customer Ms.Chaitanya we would like to bring the following information to you, that as per the request of this customer we had refunded her amount of Rupees One thousand and eight ( Rs.1008.00) vide cheque no. 002550 Dtd. 14/11/13, at HDFC Bank . Hence this issue is solved and complaint is closed from our end.”
Mr. Kamlesh Hasmukhbhai Patel, Surat VS BagItToday, Noida
Case: Mr. Kamlesh Hasmukhbhai Patel purchased a product on 14/09/2013 from Bagittoday. When he received the product he found that it is a damaged product. He tried many times to contact Bagittoday over phone but no response. He sent an e-mail to company for pick-up parcel on 04/10/2013 but still no response from them. As there was no positive response from Bagittoday he lodged a complaint at CFBP on 18/10/2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “We would like to inform you that we are initiating the refund against the total order value of the order id – 33250741 through cheque. We will share the cheque details soon.”
Mr. Jayamohan, Kerala VS Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd., Punjab
Case: During September 2013 Mr. Jayamohan got a call from Datawind regarding the new Product, Aakash Tablet. The telecaller mentioned the features of the product(Dual Core Processor, Voice Calling, Edge,...etc). So he confirmed the order, and they delivered the product as COD (Cash On Delivery) and paid cash Rs 4299/-. But when he opened the box but he found that they have delivered Ubislate 7Cx which does not have the features what they told to him over phone. So he immediately emailed them regarding the wrong product delivery. After repeated emails they agreed for replacement but for that he'd have to send back the product to their Amritsar address and once the product reaches there they will send back new product to him as COD for the additional amount of Rs 2000/-. He agreed that and was waiting for their email. But they did not respond back. As there was no response from Datawind Mr. Jayamohan registered a complaint at CFBP on 9/10/2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “I got the replacement from Datawind as COD and I paid the additional amount of Rs 2000/- for the new device. Now the issue is resolved. Thank you for your help.”
Mr. Divyesh J Pancholi, Surat VS Yebhi.com, Gurgaon
Case: Mr. Divyesh Pancholi purchased 2 products amounting to Rs.848.00 from yebhi.com on 10 Sep 2013. As the products was not up to the mark he returned both the products and asked for a refund. He received a refund for only one product i.e. Rs. 424/- on 7/10/2013 and balance Rs. 424/- of another product was still pending. He called up yebhi.com customer care, they told him that the balance refund will be credited on 8 Oct 2013. The committed date passed thereafter many promises of refund were. Mr. Pancholi registered a complaint at CFBP on 23/10/2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “Thank you very much for your support. My complain no: 0006923/2013 is resolved through your support. Yebhi.com refunded my amount on 25/10/2013.”
Mr. Kamal Singh, New Delhi VS IFB Industries Limited, Goa
Case: Mr. Kamal Singh had purchased an IFB MAXI DRY 550 06/12/2010 and is covered under a 4 year warranty. During September 2013 his Dryer stopped working and registered a complaint at IFB. But nobody from IFB came to repair the machine. Disappointed with their service he registered a complaint at CFBP on 30/9/2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “The problem has been resolved and the same has been confirmed with Mrs. Singh and the customer is satisfied now”
Mr. Vivek Kumar, Patna VS The MobileStore Ltd, Patna
Case: Mr. Vivek Kumar had given Samsung gtn7000 mobile for repair to THE MOBILE STORE at Patna (Dumrao Palace, Frazer Road )on 18/10/2013. He had taken a 1 year extended warranty. They told that once the mobile is repaired they will inform him or he can inquire about it after 15 days. More than 15 days passed there was no response from The MobileStore Ltd. Mr. Vivek Kumar also logged his complaint twice at their site. They were not providing any fixed date for handset delivery. Disappointed with their service he registered a complaint at CFBP on 14/11/2013. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “My Problem (COMPLAIN No. 0007202/2013) has been resolved now and I m thankful to CFBP.”
Mr. Sunil Kumar Panda, Orissa VS Zopo Mobiles Private Limited, Delhi
Case: Mr. Sunil Kumar Panda placed an order in an ONLINE store website www.zopomobiles.in on 04 Nov 2013 and placed an order for a mobile (Zopo ZP990 6 inch FHD MT6589 Turbo 2 GB RAM + 32 GB ROM). He paid a total amount of Rs. 23,300/- for the same through online. The assured date for delivering the order passed. The company was not responding to any of his queries. Fed up with the follow up Mr. Sunil Kumar lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “We would like to inform you that we have refunded the customer complete amount paid for the product. We have communicated customer also regarding the refund and customer has got his money in his account.”
Mr. Amritanshu Mishra from Varanasi VS IFB Industries Limited, Goa
Case: Mr. Amritanshu Mishra bought an IFB washing machine on 4th Feb 2014. The dealer said that installation and demonstration would be done at his place within 24 hrs of request. Since the dealer did not turned up he called IFB and asked them to arrange for a visit. He was assured that within 24 hrs someone will visit, but no one even called him. Except false assurance no body visited his residence for installation and demo. Meanwhile Mr. Mishra started getting calls from IFB dealer that by mistake he had charged Rs.6000/- less from him and wants him to pay 6000 more after 20 days of his purchase. He have a receipt of Rs. 80,000/- and this deal was closed, but after 20-22 days of purchase the IFB dealer is harassing him to pay Rs. 6000/- more and he was using his contacts in IFB to not to give installation, demonstration and any assistance to Mr. Mishra. Mr. Mishra lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “Confirmed with the customer (Amritanshu Mishra) machine has been replaced and he is satisfied with the demo & installation provided.”
Mr. Sivakumar Moorthy, Chennai VS IFB Industries Limited, Goa
Case: Mr. Sivakumar Moorthy lodged a complaint at IFB service centre for servicing. After 2 weeks one technician came and checked the machine and said one of the machine part should be changed, but he has to wait for few days as the same is not available right now. Even after many days no one turned up. He kept following up with them but instead of false assurance there was no sign of resolution. He lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “We have confirmed with the customer (Sivakumar Moorthy) and the issue has been resolved.”
Mr. Vinod Sharma, Mumbai VS Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd, Punjab
Case: Mr. Vinod Sharma had purchased DATAWIND - UBSLATE 7C+ which he had sent for repairs on 13th July 2013. He was asked to send a cheque of Rs.1500/- to Amritsar, which he had sent on 19.07.2013 through Maruti courier. The cheque was cleared from his account on 30-07-13. Inspite of several mails and calls the company did not repaired and delivered his tab. Fed up with the follow up he registered a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The Complainant wrote: “Thanks for your intervention. I have received my instrument duly repaired.”
Mr. Vikas Jha, Delhi VS Flipkart Online Services Pvt. Ltd, Delhi
Case: Mr. Vikas Jha bought a HP mouse from Flipkart.com by reading the advertisement showing 3 years of warranty on 02nd march 2014 but when he received the order it had only one year warranty. He registered a complaint at Flipkart.com, but there was no response from them. Mr. Jha wanted a refund or exchange his product with 3 years warranty. He lodged a complaint at CFBP on CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “The above issue is been taken care of by the relevant team. We would like to inform you that a conference call was arranged between the seller and buyer. Seller agreed to send a new Invoice copy with the 3 years warranty being mentioned. Customer agreed.”
Mr. Abhishek Shrivastav, Mumbai VS Morphy Richards, Mumbai
Case: Mr. Abhishek Shrivastav bought a Juicer plus on 9th August 2013. After some time it stopped functioning. He registered a complaint and the machine was taken to near by service center. Even after 2 months his problem was still not resolved. As there was no sign of redressing his grievance, he lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “Below complaint attended and resolved as per customer requirement.”
Mr. L. Umanath, Coimbatore VS Videocon Digital DTH Service, Tamilnadu
Case: Mr. L. Umanath opted for Videocon DTH connection on 7th June 2013 and paid full amount for one full year subscription. After 7 months the service was disconnected without any reason. He lodged a complaint at Videocon DTH service. Since the complaint was not getting resolved he lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “The issue related to the extention of the viewing period has been resolved by doing correction. The same has been informed to the customer and has received acknowledgement on his satisfaction.”
Mr. Syed Kounsar Hussain, Jammu VS Kashmir Vs Flipkart.com, Bangalore
Case: Mr. Syed Kounsar Hussain purchased a HPSlate 7 Tab from Flipkart on 24.03.2014 for Rs.7699/-However there was a price difference of Rs.1000/- which company undertook to refund and advised him not to cancel the order. However despite several reminders by the Complainant the amount was not refunded. Mr. Syed lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “We are in receipt of your mail regarding the refund of price difference. We sincerely regret the delay and would like to inform that Rs.1000/- has been added to Customer's Flipkart wallet balance. We called the customer and informed the same”
Mr. Biraj Lama, Andhra Pradesh VS Printvenue.com, Haryana
Case: Mr. Biraj Lama ordered a round neck Tshirt and customized it online using the online customization facility by Printvenue. He placed the order on 2nd April 2014 and received a text message on his phone and an email stating that the goods has been dispatched as on 7th April 2014. His address was given on the shipment confirmation mail sent by Printvenue and shipped via India Post AWB NO ED274605203IN. But when he tried to track his shipment, it showed delivered to some other address and received by some other person. Mr. Biraj Lama lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “Thank you Council for Fair Business Practices (CFBP). The matter has been resolved and I have received my product. Thank you”
Mr. Vaidheeswaran, Chennai VS Tata Docomo, Chennai
Case: Mr. Vaidheeswaran received an excess bill amounted to Rs.10786.56/- as against the monthly regular bill and insisted him to pay the same and also disconnected the service. He was getting calls daily for the payment. As there was no sign of redressing his grievance, Mr. Vaidheeswaran lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “Greetings From Tata Tele services. As discussed through the call, request you to please make the payment of Rs, 2000/- remaining amount Rs, 8787/- has been waived off. Regrets for the inconvenience caused”
Mr. Prayukth K V, Bangalore VS Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Karnataka
Case: The gas agency of Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) failed to supply a refill for a cylinder booked by the Complainant Mr. Prayukth on January 27 2014. He even escalated the matter to IOC but they washed their hands off the whole thing saying its between him and the agency. Don’t know where to go for his grievance, Mr. Prayukth lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: Many thanks to you. My complaint has been resolved. The agency has finally delivered my refill and tendered a due apology. They have also given me an assurance to the effect that such an episode will not occur again. I dont think this issue would have been resolved without your prompt intervention. Would like to place on record my gratitude for your help in resolving this issue. You are truly a blessing for customers like me.
Ms. Aparna Pathak, Gandhinagar VS Bharti Airtel Ltd, Gujarat
Case: Ms. Aparna Pathak wanted to recharge her mobile with Airtel 3G service, but instead of 3G recharge customer care executive activated 2G recharge in her Airtel number. So she deactivated it immediately and asked for a refund. As there was no sign of her complaint getting resolved, she lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “This is with reference to the email dated 28th May 2014, regarding instead of 3G recharge customer care executive activated 2G recharge in your Airtel number services. As per our telephonic discussion that Rs. 100 adjustment given on your number, we apologies for inconvenience. Airtel regrets for the inconvenience caused to you”
Ms. Anjali Shirley Sharma, Mumbai VS Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai
Case: Ms. Anjali Shirley Sharma purchased a Bajaj Mixer Grinder from Croma (Belapur) on 12th October 2013. By the end of May 2014 the product started giving problem. She called many times in the service center, but no success and lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “Please update this complaint as resolved and please find above a signed copy of call slip from Customer. Hope this concern will be treated as Resolved from our side”
Ms. Hetal Vasa, Pune VS Idea Cellular Ltd, Pune
Case: On 30th May 2014 Ms. Hetal Vasa bought a new sim card from Idea. She paid Rs. 130/- for the same and was told that she will get Rs. 70 talk time and 50MB data on activation. After activation, she recharged her number with Rs. 449 for 2GB data for 3Gservice and Rs. 150 for full talk time. However, they did not credit her number with talk time and data on activation (Rs. 70 and 50MB resp.). Due to this, her balance of Rs. 150 talk time and my 2GB data both got cancelled from their system. On calling their customer care number she was informed that the complaint had been noted and the same will be credited within 24 to 48 hours. Fed up with the follow up Ms. Hetal registered a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “On the evening of 9th June 2014, Idea has restored my data plan and today morning they have credited the talktime as well. This has happened after you sent a mail for the same and I am highly grateful to you for the same. Your assistance is highly appreciated. Please accept my gratitude. I would also like to congratulate you and your team for the fantastic job you guys are doing. Lending a voice to the aggrieved consumers who have nowhere to voice their grievances. All the best for everything”
Mr. Shanjul Mittal, Bangalore VS Gionee, New Delhi
Case: Mr. Shanjul Mittal was using a Gionee ElifeE6 mobile. Due to some problem in the phone he submitted his mobile to service center and they said it will hardly takes 1 week to get it fixed. After one week when he called the service centre for knowing the current status they said it will take one more week. Mr. Mittal requested the service centre to provide another smartphone for the time being as he is a security engineer and needed to be available 24/7 online. But they refused his request. Fed up with the follow up Mr. Shanjul Mittal registered a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: Dear CFBP team the issue was resolved. Thank you for your help
Ms. Shobhana Narayan, Mumbai VS Flowers2Bhopal.com
Case: Ms. Shobhana Narayan wanted to gift her mother on mother’s day and opted for Flowers2Bhopal.com service for the same and ordered for a bouquet on 11th May 2014. The Flowers2Bhopal.com people were supposed to deliver the flowers to her mother’s house on mother’s day, but they failed to do so. As a result Ms. Shobhana cancelled the order and asked for a refund. As they were delaying the refund process she lodged a complaint at CFBP.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “This is to inform you that I finally got the refund amount, Thank you”
Mr. Vimal Sanghavi, Mumbai VS Haier Appliances (India) P. Ltd, New Delhi
Case: Mr. Vimal Sanghavi purchased a Haier LED and soon after its purchase it started showing lines on the display. He lodged a complaint to which a company technician came and checked the TV. The company tech said the TV has physical damage and so not covered under warranty. After a long argument by the Complainant saying physical damage is not possible and that the tech was pressing the screen continuously due to which there were only line but the picture quality was perfect and then there was no color. After lot of talking he asked the technician as to what needs to be done to get it fixed. The technician told Mr. Sanghavi that it will cost to about Rs.22800/- just to replace the screen. This was a shock for Mr. Sanghavi as the LED cost was Rs.18000/-. They said that it is the company policy and they are helpless. Mr. Sanghavi lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “Thank you for your immediate action to my above mentioned complain. I have been in touch with Mr. Umesh, who has been very co-operative and customer friendly, after knowing the whole issue he has got the unit repaired under warranty. The issue has been resolved amicably and therefore request you to kindly close the case”
Mr. Somasekhar Gangarapu, Chennai VS Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd., Amritsar
Case: Mr. Somasekhar Gangarapu pre-booked Ubislate with Booking id PMD6DA04A397 on 2012-03-06 and paid amount Rs2999 by ICICI Cheque. On 2012-10-19, Datawind promised to deliver the device within 72hrs. Till today neither device delivered nor amount refunded. Mr. Somasekhar lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “Please be informed that I have received the device yesterday. Would like to thank and appreciate the extended help you have provided in solving this issue.”
Mrs. Amee Mehta, Patna VS M/s. Greeshma Enterprises, Chennai
Case: Mrs. Mehta ordered 7 sarees from Greeshma Enterprises and made an advance payment of Rs. 3500/- from her account on 26/06/2014. She was assured that the order will be delivered within a week. Days after the assured date the order was not delivered. Mrs. Mehta cancelled the order and asked for a refund of the advance paid. As there was no response from Greeshma Enterprises, Mrs. Mehta lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “I received a refund of Rs 3500 from them today in my account. Thank you for your support and help .”
Mr. Amit Chandrakant Mirashi, Mumbai VS XOLO Mobiles, Noida
Case: Mr. Amit Chandrakant surrendered his mobile at the service centre of XOLO mobiles for repair on 5th of July'14 for Mobile hang related issue. Even after the assured date the handset was not repaired. Left with no alternative Mr. Amit lodged his complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “Thank you very much for supporting me. I got new handset against my old mobile. Without your support I unable to fight with them. Once again thank you very much.”
Mr. Anup Bagla, Hyderabad VS Shophunk.com, Bangalore
Case: Mr. Anup Bagla was assured by the Shophunk.com that he will receive the Free Worldtech Intelligent Tab within 2/3 days for playing the Samsung Mobile contest. When they didn’t turned up Mr. Bagla lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “We have spoken with the customer and we have solved the issue.”
Mr. Sethu Nagarajan, Tamilnadu VS Flipkart, Bangalore
Case: Mr. Sethu Nagarajan purchased a Laptop and 8 GB RAM through Flipkart . The purchase was done through his Credit card (with 6 months EMI option). After a week time, Flipkart cancelled his Laptop order, as there were no stocks. However, they shipped the 8 GB RAM and he received it promptly. Later he had communicated with Flipkart stating that he wanted to return the RAM as it was of no use since the laptop for which he bought the RAM itself is not delivered. Flipkart also agreed to accept the item and refund the whole amount including the postal charges. Apparently there were no response from their side related to the refund (both for the postal charges and the article). ICICI bank charged him EMI on his credit card for no purchases he made, since the purchase itself is cancelled. He did not get the refund for the article that was returned to them. Whenever he check with the Flipkart, he promptly get a response that they will look into the matter or they say that, they will check with their warehouse to see if the article has arrived or not. Mr. Nagarajan lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “They processed the refund three days back. Thank you very much for your support.”
Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh, Ludhiana VS Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd., Amritsar
Case: Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh booked an Akash tab through online. Even after the assured time and date the product was not delivered. There was no response from the customer care department. Left with no alternative Mr. Vijay lodged his complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “I have received my Akash tab recently. Thanks for your support.”
Dr. Surjeet Kumar, New Delhi VS Vs Bharti Airtel Ltd, New Delhi
Case: Mr. Surjeet Kumar was using Airtel Broadband services since 4 years. Since the date of taking connection till now he have experienced many times internet line problem. Each time technical guy comes and give the reason as wire damage at roof by squirrel as reason, and every time they change wire. Mr. Kumar requested many time for rewiring from other place, but nothing was done. Left with no alternative Mr. Surjeet Kumar lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “Kindly close my complain with reference number 0037897/2015 as my complain is resolved by company”
Mr. Chandrasekhar Gupta, Andhra Pradesh VS Ambrane India Pvt Ltd., New Delhi
Case: Mr. Chandrasekhar Gupta purchased an Ambrane P-1300 in October 2014. It worked fine for few days and then the 1Amp output stopped working and even it's not charging. He called and mailed their customer care many time. They refused to provide any solution saying it's a physical damage so it can't be replaced or repaired for a free-of-cost though the product is still under warranty. Mr. Chandrasekhar Gupta lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “We resolved the case of customer, he is satisfied with replacement”
Mr. Abdul Wahab, Kerala VS Fashionara.com, Bangalore
Case: CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response. The complainant wrote: “I am happy to inform you that www.fashinara.com has refunded Rs.628.50/- on 04-02-2014. I am very thankful to you for taking up my complaint and resolving it. Initially they never responded to my E-mails. Only after you intervened, they started taking action.”
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “I am happy to inform you that www.fashinara.com has refunded Rs.628.50/- on 04-02-2014. I am very thankful to you for taking up my complaint and resolving it. Initially they never responded to my E-mails. Only after you intervened, they started taking action.”
Mr. Jobin Jose, Kerala VS VOLTAS, Mumbai
Case: Mr. Jobin Jose had raised a service request for non-working of A/C. The service engineers came, taken the compressor from the unit and nothing happened after that. Even after so many follow ups no proper resolution were provided. The product was still under warranty. Left with no alternative Mr. Jose lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “The issue is resolved. The AC wasn't working for one month. Now it is all fixed”
Mr. Gopala Krishna Sakamuri, Chennai VS Flipkart, Bangalore
Case: Mr. Gopala Krishna Sakamuri ordered a product worth Rs. 50000/- from Flipkart.com. 5-6 times Flipkart committed to deliver the product, but failed to do so. After 25 days, the order got cancelled stating out of stock and refund will be paid after 8 days. Mr. Gopala Krishna lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “Post the issue got escalated to you last week, Flipkart representative called me and resolved the issue. The product got delivered. Thank you very much for your support”
Mr. Vijesh Chiriyakath, Chennai VS You Broadband, Chennai
Case: Mr. Vijesh Chiriyakath cancelled his broadband connection on 31st January 2015 but didn’t receive his security deposit of Rs.900. 45 days got over but there was no response from You Broadband. Left with no alternative Mr. Vijesh lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainant wrote: “I am very happy to inform you that I received my cheque of Rs.900 from you broadband on 3rd April 2015.I got a call from You broadband the very next day on which your email was sent to You broadband for looking into my issue. They informed me that my cheque was ready. I felt so happy when I received the call because until April 1st there was no response from them. I truly believe that this happened only because of CFBP's involvement into this issue.Thank you so much for your help and effort. I request you to close this complaint since my issue has been resolved. Thank you once again for you support”
Mr. Raphael, Trissur VS Way2online Retail Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad
Case: Mr. Raphael ordered a product from whaaky.com and paid the amount by internet banking. Even after the assured date the product was neither delivered and nor refunded. Mr. Raphael lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “This is to inform you that your order S80769921 has been dispatched through DTDC courier. The consignment number is: Z51837391. You may track the same in the concerned courier website with the consignment number given and know the status of the same”
Ms. Anitha M Reddy, Bangalore VS Fashionara.com, Bangalore
Case: Ms. Anitha ordered a pair of shoes costing Rs. 3000/- from Fashionara.com. The same was delivered within 2 days, but as the item was damaged, she requested for a return of the product. As there was no response from their customers team in resolving the issue she lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The complainee wrote: “We have arranged for the pick up of the product on the 19th February 2015. Once the product is received at our central warehouse and approved by our quality team, we will initiate the refund back to the customer's account”
Ms. Swati Patil, Mumbai VS Bata India Ltd, Mumbai
Case: Ms. Patil purchased a pair of sandal from Bata showroom at Vile Parle (East). Within 2 months of its use the insole of the sandal got damaged. Bata refused to provide any solution as they provide only one month warranty. Mr. Patil lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The Complainee wrote: “We thank you for being our valuable customer and appreciate your feedback. Further to the information provided, we are happy to extend a 50% replacement for the product. Kindly follow the below procedure for replacement”
Mr. Muhammed Sajjad, Calicut VS KCL digital, Calicut
Case: Mr. Muhammed Sajjad had taken the KCL digital connection during June 2014. Recently from last 4 months the set top box stopped working, when he complained the technician came after one week and failed to rectify the set top box. Mr. Muhammed Sajjad lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The Complainant wrote: “THE COMPLAINT HAVE BEEN CHECKED AND CLEARED BY THE KCL SERVICE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT “
Mr. Mangesh Panchal, Mumbai VS Vs ICICI Bank, Mumbai
Case: Mr. Mangesh Panchal had an account with ICICI Bank. One day he got a call that he was getting reward points from the Bank and he could convert it into a gift voucher. A little while later he got an sms saying that Rs 8500/- was debited as he had made purchases by his Credit Card at Shreed Solutions, New Delhi, which he had not done as he was in Mumbai. Mr Panchal called up the Bank and inquired as to how they had got all his credit card details and why the money was deducted as he had not purchased anything. He wanted the Bank to reimburse him the amount deducted.
Outcome: CFBP took up the matter with ICICI Bank and the matter was resolved. Mr. Panchal got his money back
Mr. Karthikeyan, Chennai VS Voltas Limited, Chennai
Case: Mr. Karthikeyan purchased a Voltas AC on 12th May 2012, for RS 32300/-. He was about to purchase 3 star AC, but the sales guys encouraged him to take 5 star A/C instead for better power savings so paid extra 5000 rupees. Later he learnt that 5 star comes with aluminium coil and it does not last long more than 2-3 years. There was a gas leakage problem within a year of purchase, the service engineer (N Manikandan) just filled the gas (02/4/2013) but did not fix the problem. He also took an AMC for servicing the AC and now when the AMC got expired and called for servicing they asked him to change the aluminium coil at a cost of Rs.4000/-. Mr. Karthikeyan asked them why the problems were not fixed when the product was under warranty and AMC as the same existed during that time. Mr. Karthikeyan lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The Complainee wrote: “Customer Mr.Karthikeyan AC complaint has been resolved to his satisfaction”
Mr. Kidwai, Mumbai VS IFB Industries Limited, Goa
Case: Mr. Kidwai lodged a complaint at IFB service centre for service of his refrigerator. Even after many days no one turned up. He kept following up with them but instead of false assurance there was no sign of resolution. He lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The Complainee wrote: “The complaint has been resolved, confirmed with Mr. Kidwai and now he is satisfied with the service.”
Mr. Bharath, Chennai VS Eureka Forbes, Chennai
Case: Mr. Bharath called Eureka Forbes customer care for after service but they were giving the same answer that they will attend but nobody arrived after 12 days. He even sent mail to customer care but no reply from them too. Fed up with the follow up Mr. Bharath lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The Complainant wrote: “Thanks guys for your effort. A guy attended and solved the problem “
Mr. Akshay Kapur, Noida VS IFB Industries Limited, Goa
Case: Mr. Akshay Kapur had lodged a complaint on 9th July regarding my IFB washing machine which was still under warranty. The technician did come over but could not rectify the problem. Instead he tried to mislead the complainant. As there was no sign of redressing his grievance, Mr. Akshay lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The Complainee wrote: “The complaint has been resolved, confirmed with Mr. Akshay and now he is satisfied with the service.
Mr. Jasjeev Kohli, Mumbai VS Bookmyoffer.com, Gurgaon
Case: Mr. Jasjeev Kohli ordered a mi 10400 mah power bank, samsung 9000 mah power bank and a headphone. He was told that there is discount and all these products will be available at a price of Rs.678 out which 78 is the price of all 3 products and 600 is shipping price. He ordered the product on 8th august with Order Number: 080467756133233 and received the order on 18 August. When he opened the products the packing was broken, the case in which product came was into pieces and the most important part the product he received were all fake, they were completely different from the original products. Mr. Kohli lodged a complaint at CFBP.
Outcome: The Complainee wrote: “As per Telephonic Conversation Your Case is Resolved and if any other issues arises we are happy to help you.”
Mr. Pillai, Tamil Nadu VS IFB Industries Limited, Goa
Case: Mr. Pillai had purchased an IFB Stabilizer in March 2015 for the Air conditioner. After few months the stabilizer had a short circuit and brunt smell came during night while the A/C was switched off. After registering a complaint the technician came and removed the stabilizer and asked him to contact the shop IFB Point in Trichy from where he purchased the A/C. When he reached there, he was said that the technician will come to collect the stabilizer and replace it. After few days the stabilizer was collected by the technician. Since there was delay in replacement and fed up with follow up Mr. Pillai lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The Complainee wrote: “Below issue is resolved, you may close the same at your end.”
Mr. Ashok Kumar, Delhi VS Franke Faber India Ltd, Pune
Case: Mr. Ashok Kumar had purchased a Faber cooking gas stove. The glass of the gas stove got broken and after so many calls there was no response from the company. More than 3 months passed there was no sign of redressing his grievance, Mr. Ashok Kumar lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The Complainee wrote: “Dear Team, The complaint is resolved on 29.10.2015. Please find attached Job sheet.”
Mr. Anant Thakur, Jharkhand VS M/s. Shree Vignesh Indane (IOCL distributor)
Case: Mr. Anant Thakur lodged a complaint at CFBP against his Indane Gas Distributor M/s. Shree Vignesh from Jharkhand. The complaint was on behalf of all the consumers because not only he but many people where harassed by the distributor. Non-delivery of cylinder after booking and several follow ups, asking for extra money, not listening to people and do what ever you want attitude etc made Mr. Thakur to lodge a complaint at CFBP against the distributor. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The Complainant wrote: “This is to notify that my compliant has been addressed satisfactorily. Thanks for the support.”
Mr. Vikas Jha, Delhi VS Reliance Communication, Delhi
Case: Mr. Vikas Jha was using Reliance service and on 23rd Sep 2015 the balance of Rs. 138/- was surprisingly deducted to nil. A complaint was registered on the same day. On 24th Sep at 8.00 pm he got a message that the complaint has been resolved and the balance will be posted in your account soon. No balance was received and on 25th Sep he got a message, stating the amount was deducted against GPRS usage. But Mr. Jha’s had 3G data pack having sufficient data balance till 24th sept 2015. The amount from the main balance is deducted only when the data pack is over. Tired with the follow up Mr. Jha lodged a complaint at CFBP. CFBP took up the matter and got a positive response.
Outcome: The Complainant wrote: “Thank You so much sir for your interference in to the matter. I got my balance back and I hope this type of mistake will not come again by the Reliance operator. Thanks once again.”