August 2022

Nearly seven in 10 consumers are unhappy at the Delhi High Court order staying recent government guidelines that prohibited restaurants from levying service charge automatically on food bills, a new report showed on Tuesday. The Delhi HC last week stayed the new guidelines of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) restraining restaurants from adding a service charge by default to food bills. A new LocalCircles survey found 70 per cent of respondents plan to either refuse paying the service tax or avoid restaurants that levy it. “The contention of consumers is that most diners in air-conditioned restaurants tend to tip the staff in the normal course according to the service quality,” the findings showed. A breakdown of those opposed to service charges shows that 20 per cent plan to put up a fight and not pay the additional charges, 37 per cent respondents plan to avoid restaurants that levy service charges, while 13 per cent were planning to avoid restaurant eating. In the remaining cases, 28 per cent expressed willingness to pay service charge if it was part of the bill while 2 per cent respondents were undecided on their course of action. LocalCircles conducted a national survey which received over 21,000 responses from consumers located in 291 districts. When asked about their experiences, among those with poor or mediocre service experiences, 23 per cent stated it had happened once or twice, 18 per cent said it happened three to five times and even worse, 24 per cent respondents said it had happened as many as 6-10 times while 6 per cent were among those who had undergone a bad service experience despite service charge being levied in the bill, more than 10 times. LocalCircles said it will share the findings of this report with the CCPA and the Department of Consumer Affairs so as they move to defend the rights of the consumers. In its response to the verdict, the National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI) had said it has always been steadfast in its assertion that there is nothing illegal in levying of service charge and it is a very transparent system. The CCPA has said that the consumer may make a request to the concerned hotel or restaurant to remove service charge from the bill amount. The consumer may also file a complaint against unfair trade practices with the Consumer Commission. Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article. Source: https://www.moneylife.in/article/7-in-10-consumers-unhappy-with-stay-on-ccpas-restaurant-service-charge-norms/67873.html

The Centre has conducted a root cause analysis of the public grievances received by select government departments to understand the reasons behind such complaints. As many as 6,52,088 public grievances were raised from January to July 25 this year on Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) – a portal that allows citizens to register complaints — of which 6,16,979 were disposed of, according to a report by the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DARPG). The report mentions the root cause analysis of public grievances raised against seven government departments/ministries — Central Board of Direct Taxes (Income Tax), Home Ministry, Housing and Urban Affairs, Department of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare, Department of Financial Services (Insurance division), Department of School Education and Literacy and Ministry of External Affairs. “Root cause analysis of grievances received by select ministries/departments has been conducted to understand and highlight the major categories under which the grievances are recorded,” it said. As many as 31,617 public grievances were raised against CBDT (Income Tax) during the period, of which 27,974 were disposed of, the report said. Majority of these grievances were on direct taxes, PAN related and technical issues with the department’s website. Issues around refund such as long delays, incorrect amount credited and IT returns filed not processed for months and mis-matches in TDS resulting in incorrect demand generation are some of the major areas of public grievances, said the CPGRAMS monthly report for July. Grievances were also being raised by citizens on delay/mistakes in issuance of PAN and on difficulty in linking PAN with Aadhaar, it mentioned. The report said a total of 24,167 grievances were registered against the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) between January and July 25, 2022, of which 23,997 were disposed of. A majority of them were on general matters and on police-related issues like slow investigation in critical cases (rape, dowry, among others), lack of responsiveness towards lodged complaints and issues plaguing the forces such as corruption, it said. Most of the public grievances filed with the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs were related to illegal encroachment on properties and areas by unauthorised people, requests for rent control being charged by home owners in urban areas, property dealers/builders taking payments and not completing the project and delay in projects and possession of property despite completion of construction. It got 18,597 complaints, of which 18,021 were redressed, during the period. People also raised grievances on non-approval of loans/long delays in home loan approval under Pradhan Mantri Aawas Yojana (Urban) and on requests to re-assess the home loan regulations, the report said. The Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, against whom 15,873 grievances were raised, got complaints related to involvement of middlemen and localised markets resulting in low crop prices for farmers, cartels formed by commission agents to bring the prices down, requests for a minimum support price by farmers for selling the crops and corruption/harassment by officials in NABARD, NAFED, etc, it mentioned. Issues with LIC (payment not received, officials creating issues, wrong calculation, premium issues, etc) and non-receipt of insurance claims under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna, Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Beema Yojana and Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana, were the major categories under which grievances were raised against the Department of Financial Services (Insurance division), according to the report. The Department of School Education and Literacy received 11,184 grievances (10,932 were disposed of), majority of them on transfer issues with teachers (unwanted transfers, delays in applied transfer causing difficulties in managing their families) and difficulties in getting admission in KVS (Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan) among others. “Inefficiencies/long delay in passport process” and “difficulties faced by Indian expat” are the major categories under which most of the 10,105 public grievances received during January and July 25, 2022, were raised against the Ministry of External Affairs. Source: https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/centre-conducts-root-cause-analysis-of-public-grievances-at-select-depts-122080300327_1.html

Almost every day, we read media reports about people losing money to a variety of financial frauds. Moneylife has been reporting these frauds extensively and warning people on how to protect. Here is a simple way to protect the bulk of your money if you fall victim to an online scam. You can do it by setting transaction limits on your cards and online banking transactions by evaluating your financial needs on a one-time basis. It will ensure that the amount of money withdrawn from your bank account or on your credit card is only within the limit set by you. Fraudsters usually work at luring people to part with their identification details required for fulfilling know-your-customer (KYC) requirements. They also con you into sharing one-time passwords (OTP) through scam calls, or worse, take control of your screen. Basically, fraudsters aim to get all information required to misuse credit or debit cards by luring people to part with details. They do this by frightening people by masquerading as bank officers and threatening to block accounts or credit or debit cards for want of KYC information and then offer to guide them online to comply with the requirements. This is when they dupe people into parting with information that allows them to log into net banking accounts or even share OTPs. How many of us know that limits set for our debit and credit cards and online transactions play a vital role in deciding how much money can be siphoned out of our accounts by fraudsters? The higher the limit, the higher the loss. Let us now understand various limits that can be set. You can set two types of limits: first, on the number of transactions, and second, the amount or size of a transaction. The first allows you to set the total number of transactions per day based on your usage – for instance, it can be four transactions per day on your debit card. The second option allows you to set the maximum amount that can be withdrawn or transferred from your card or account daily. Again, this depends on your personal spending pattern. You can set it up at anywhere between Rs25,000 to Rs1 lakh per day. Ideally, you should cap your overall transaction amount at a little higher than your usual payment requirements to provide for unforeseen contingencies.  These limits are not independent but integrated with one another. So, if you have set your limits at Rs1 lakh and four transactions, you can make four transactions of Rs25,000 each or a single transaction of Rs1 lakh or any such combination on any given day. Online banking software also allows us to set further limits and sub-limits also. To elaborate, if I want to transfer a certain amount to Mr XYZ online – say in a unified payment interface (UPI) or net banking transaction, I can add him as a beneficiary and go on to define whether I want to make a one-time payment to him or plan on a recurring transaction with a cap on the maximum limit of amount that can be transferred. This is ideal for making payments directly into the accounts of domestic help or transferring allowances to children, parents or dependents who may live in another city or for subscription payments like newspapers, etc. The same applies to debit and credit cards also. If you have a good credit score and monthly income, banks will try and lure you with a premium card or a gold or platinum card with significantly higher spending limits. While this is flattering, it also exposes you to a higher risk if you are a victim of fraud. So, it is ideal to set your limits based on your spending patterns and will usually be much lower than the default limits set by your card issuer or bank. Most banks allow you to set default limits online. Some banks even facilitate setting a time slot during which no online banking transaction can take place. For example, if my routine starts at 9 in the morning and ends at 10 at night, I can set the time slot for ‘no online banking’ from 9.30pm to 9.30am, ensuring that your card simply cannot be misused while you are sleeping. Please check the various limits available to you and make it a point to re-set them as a one-time exercise to protect yourself and limit losses in case you become the victim of fraud. Please note that this is an overall concept and may differ from bank to bank, so you may like to contact your bank for help with the specific features on offer for you.  Needless to add, this is not a guarantee against fraud because fraudsters are ingenious and always find new tricks to dupe people. The transaction limits circumscribe potential losses and establish you as a prudent customer when fighting for redress if the need should arise. (Abhay Datar is a consumer activist. After working at Bank of Baroda for about 29 years, he retired as IT Manager. After retirement, Mr Datar joined the Consumer Guidance Cell of Mumbai Grahak Panchayat (MGP) in 2008 and solved many cases related to banking, including online fraudulent transactions, misuse of credit cards and ATM cards. He was a Member of the Managing Committee of MGP till March 2021.) Source: https://www.moneylife.in/article/online-frauds-how-to-protect-yourself-by-setting-transaction-limits/67928.html

Many borrowers who were struggling with poor service from credit bureaus or were victims of incorrect credit data reports but did not get a proper resolution can now hope for succour. There will now be an RBI-monitored grievance redressal mechanism for complaints against the credit score bureau. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has announced that individuals having issues with credit information companies such as CIBIL, Experian, Equifax etc., can file complaints directly with the central bank. The announcement was made by the RBI governor today in the statement after the Monetary Policy review. These credit information companies (CICs), commonly called credit bureaus, collate the data of the customers from banks, credit card companies and other financial institutions. On the basis of the data collected, these CICs offer a score indicating whether the customer is a good borrower or a bad borrower. However, it may happen that the information available with the credit bureaus is wrong and resulting incorrect credit score is not corrected within 30 days. Now onwards if there is no resolution from these bureaus within 30 days, the borrower can file a complaint with the RBI against the CICs. As per the governor’s statement, “The Reserve Bank – Integrated Ombudsman Scheme (RB-IOS) has improved the customer grievance redress mechanism. The turnaround time of grievance redress under RB-IOS has declined considerably. In order to make the RB-IOS more broad-based, it has been decided to include Credit Information Companies (CICs) under the RB-IOS framework. This will provide a cost-free alternative redress mechanism for grievances against CICs. Further, with a view to strengthen the internal grievance redress by CICs themselves, it has been decided to mandate the CICs to have their own internal Ombudsman (IO) framework.” As per the Statement on Developmental and Regulatory Policies, “The Reserve Bank-Integrated Ombudsman Scheme (RB-IOS) 2021, covers Regulated Entities (REs) such as scheduled commercial banks including urban cooperative banks, non-banking financial companies (NBFCs) and non-scheduled primary co-operative banks with a deposit size of Rs 50 crore and above. In order to make the RB-IOS more broad-based, it has been decided to bring Credit Information Companies (CICs) also under the ambit of RB-IOS 2021. This will provide a cost-free alternate redress mechanism to customers of REs for grievances against CICs. Further, with a view to strengthen the internal grievance redress of the CICs and to make it more efficient, it has also been decided to bring the CICs under the Internal Ombudsman (IO) framework.” Currently, there are four credit information companies in India – namely, Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd (CIBIL), Equifax Credit Information Services Pvt Ltd, Experian Credit Information Company of India Pvt Ltd and CRIF High Mark Credit Information Services Pvt Ltd. Neeraj Dhawan, Country Manager, Experian India says, “It was announced that as a part of its Development and Regulatory Policies, to improve the credit ecosystem in the country, Credit Information Companies (CICs) will be brought under the purview of the RBI’s Integrated Ombudsman Scheme. This will offer a faster redressal mechanism for grievances. Also, CICs will be required to have their own internal Ombudsman (IO) framework. This is a positive step that will help consumers resolve their concerns to gain timely access to credit and be in control of their finances.” What is RBI’s integrated ombudsman scheme? The central bank launched Reserve Bank – Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021 in November 2021. The scheme integrates the existing three Ombudsman schemes of RBI namely, (i) the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006; (ii) the Ombudsman Scheme for Non-Banking Financial Companies, 2018; and (iii) the Ombudsman Scheme for Digital Transactions, 2019. Some of the salient features of the Scheme are: It will no longer be necessary for a complainant to identify under which scheme he/she should file a complaint with the Ombudsman. The Scheme defines ‘deficiency in service’ as the ground for filing a complaint, with a specified list of exclusions. Therefore, the complaints would no longer be rejected simply on account of “not covered under the grounds listed in the scheme”. The Scheme has done away with the jurisdiction of each ombudsman office. A Centralised Receipt and Processing Centre has been set up at RBI, Chandigarh for receipt and initial processing of physical and email complaints in any language. The responsibility of representing the Regulated Entity and furnishing information in respect of complaints filed by customers against the Regulated Entity would be that of the Principal Nodal Officer in the rank of a General Manager in a Public Sector Bank or equivalent. The Regulated Entity will not have the right to appeal in cases where an Award is issued by the ombudsman against it for not furnishing satisfactory and timely information/documents. Source: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/wealth/borrow/now-you-can-take-your-unresolved-credit-score-complaint-to-rbi/articleshow/93363945.cms

The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has moved an appeal in the Delhi High Court challenging the July 20 order that stayed the former’s new guidelines restraining restaurants from adding a service charge by default to food bills. The appeal would be taken up before the Chief Justice-headed division bench on August 16. The stay of the fresh guidelines of the country’s consumer watchdog on July 20 was following the challenging plea of the National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI). In the last hearing, Justice Yashwant Varma remarked: “Don’t pay. Don’t enter the restaurant. It’s a matter of choice.” Granting the stay, the court has also directed that the information regarding the levy of Service Charge should be displayed on menu cards and also otherwise displayed so that customers are aware of this charge. Importantly, the court also clarified that the Service Charge cannot be levied on any takeaway orders. NRAI is very relieved with the passing of this order because it otherwise had a direct adverse impact on the human capital employed in the trade. In its response to the verdict, the NRAI said it has always been steadfast in its assertion that there is nothing illegal in levying of Service Charge and it is a very transparent system. “The levying of service charge is a matter of contract and decision of the management. The levying of service charge is displayed at various places in the restaurant. The same is also displayed on the menu cards of the restaurants. Once the customer places the order after being made aware of the terms and conditions there comes into existence a binding contract. No authority can interfere with the binding nature of a valid contract until and unless it is shown and proved to be unconscionable or is an unfair trade practice,” it stated. The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), which comes under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, has issued guidelines for preventing unfair trade practices and violation of consumer rights with regard to the hotels and restaurants levying service charge, stating that the consumer may lodge a complaint with the National Consumer Helpline (NCH) against such practice. The CCPA said that the consumer may make a request to the concerned hotel or restaurant to remove service charge from the bill amount. The consumer may also file a complaint against unfair trade practices with the Consumer Commission. Source:https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/hotels-/-restaurants/eatery-service-charge-row-ccpa-moves-appeal-against-delhi-hc-stay-on-guidelines/articleshow/93498284.cms

In a positive development, the Centre has decided to reduce resolution time of public grievances, raised on a dedicated portal, to a maximum of 30 days from the existing 45 days. Besides, it has been decided that a complaint received from a citizen will not be closed until an appeal filed against it is disposed. “The disposed grievance will be treated as closed unless the citizen has filed the appeal. If the appeal is received from the citizen against the disposed grievance, the grievance will be treated as closed only after disposal of appeal,” said an order issued by the department of administrative reforms and public grievances (DARPG). The move follows the government’s emphasis on effective implementation of public grievance redressal mechanism with disposal of grievance within minimum possible time, but with maximum possible satisfaction of the complainant. DARPG, which is under the Union ministry of personnel, public grievances and pensions, said it has undertaken a comprehensive reform of the centralised public grievance redress and monitoring system (CPGRAMS)—an online portal that allows people to raise complaint against government bodies—to make it more responsive to the needs of the citizens. The government wants the citizens’ voices to be heard and wants them to repose trust in the system, it said. Last year, DARPG had reduced the maximum time limit to 45 days from 60 days to resolve public grievances. Union minister of state (independent charge) science & technology, Dr Jitendra Singh, who is also minister incharge administrative reforms also pointed out that in various monthly ‘Pragati’ (pro-active governance and timely implementation) review meetings, the prime minister (PM) himself reviews the status of public grievances. He said, the twin factors of people’s satisfaction and time redressal of grievances has led to about a 10-fold increase in public grievance cases since this government came to power in 2014 and this also reflects the trust citizens have shown in the government. The public grievances have increased from 200,000 in 2014 to more than 2,200,000 at present with more than 95% disposal of cases. Dr Jitendra Singh said the latest order mandates that the grievances received on CPGRAMS shall be resolved promptly as soon as they are received but within a maximum period of 30 days and, in case the redress is not possible within the prescribed time-frame due to the circumstances such as sub-judice matters/policy issues, etc, an interim/appropriate reply shall be given to the citizen. He said this measure will go a long way in furthering the citizen-centric governance, as the government is ensuring that grievances are disposed as expeditiously as possible. Dr Jitendra Singh informed that CPGRAMS 7.0 has also enabled auto-routing of grievances to last-mile grievance officers, along with improved data analytics using digital dashboards. He added that as many as 3,023,894 grievances were received in 2021 (of which 2,135,923 were disposed), 3,342,873 in 2020 (2,319,569 disposed), and 2,711,455 in 2019 (1,639,852 disposed. The DARPG has asked all departments to appoint nodal grievance resolution officers and to empower them adequately to resolve public complaints. The order states that citizens will be provided the option to file an appeal if they are not satisfied with the grievance disposed of and the feedback received from citizens by the call centre will be shared with ministries or departments who would be responsible to deal with the feedback and to make systemic improvements. To institutionalise the mechanism of grievance resolution, and to ensure quality disposal, the secretary of the ministry/department may review the disposal process in senior officers meetings, the DARPG said. Ministries/departments may also monitor complaints which may be raised in print and electronic media, the order said. All ministries/departments have also been asked to regularly analyse the trend of grievances and conduct a ‘root cause analysis’. “Based on the analysis of the grievances, the ministry/ department may take remedial measures,” the order said. To achieve the objectives of the CPGRAMS, and to satisfactorily resolve the grievances of the citizens, all ministries and departments need to review, streamline and strengthen their internal resolution mechanisms, it noted. The DARPG said it will also organise training programmes in collaboration with the Institute of Secretarial Training and Management (ISTM) here in this regard. The Centre received over 5,70,969 public grievances against various government departments between 1 January 2022 to 31 July 2022, with the department of financial services (DFS) getting most of such complaints. Out of these complaints received on the CPGRAMS portal, as many as 5,81,137 were disposed. The department of financial services (banking division), ministry of labour and employment, central board of direct taxes, ministry of railways are the top ministries which received the maximum number of grievances. The ministry of cooperation also features in the list of maximum grievances receiving ministries. Interestingly, when we looked for the data on pendency of complaints, we found that as many as 1,697 complaints to health and family welfare department were pending for more than 180 days but less than 365 days. There are many other ministries where cases are pending beyond the 45-day resolution limit. Source: https://www.moneylife.in/article/positive-change-public-grievance-redressal-time-reduced-to-30-days-from-45-days/67930.html

While dismissing an appeal filed by a bank employee, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) clarified that terminal benefits, such as gratuity or provident fund (employer’s contribution), would not fall under the jurisdiction of consumer courts. In an order issued in the past month, the bench of Dinesh Singh (presiding member) and justice Karuna Nand Bajpayee (member) says, “The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable before the district commission, as the terminal benefits like provident fund (Bank’s contribution) and gratuity not being granted on dismissal from service is the subject-matter of the competent services tribunal or civil court. The complaint is returned un-adjudicated, the merits or the nature of the facts remain unexamined by the consumer protection fora.” “In so far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, the time-honoured remedial measure adopted by government or public sector employees having any grievance in regard to a service matter has been to seek redressal of such service matters before the competent services tribunal or civil court. In the present case, the complainant’s grievance is relating to the withholding of the provident fund (bank contribution) and the gratuity,” it observed. Nellore-based Kondareddygari Adinarayanareddy had filed revision petition before the NCDRC after the district and state commission dismissed his complaint. On 6 July 2005, he was dismissed from services by State Bank of Hyderabad (SBH) after it found that he was appointed to a post for the reserved category by submitting a false caste certificate. His grievance related to the Bank withholding portion of the terminal benefits, provident fund contribution by the Bank and gratuity on dismissing him from service. His contribution to the provident fund was released to him. NCDRC noted that, in its submission before the district commission, SBH had raised a preliminary objection in the first paragraph itself. The Bank stated that the complainant was not a ‘consumer’ as per the Consumer Protection Act as he was seeking relief of the payment of the Bank’s contribution towards provident fund and gratuity together with interest. “The district commission vide its order dated 29 August 2008 ignored the preliminary objection and entered into the merits of the case…In appeal, the state commission vide its impugned order dated 18 October 2012 also ignored the preliminary objection and entered into the facts of the case,” the bench observed. During the previous hearing, Mr Adinarayanareddy submitted that, because of his financial condition, he could not afford an advocate’s fee and beseeched that legal aid may be provided to him. NCRDC then requested advocate Abhishek Chaudhary to appear as amicus curiae to represent the complainant. In his submission, advocate Chaudhary stated that the preliminary issue regarding maintainability needed to be decided first. If the complaint was found to be not maintainable, it ought not to have been further adjudicated on merits by the consumer commission. The counsel for SBH stated that, while the district commission dismissed the complaint on merit, the state commission found that the case involved disputed questions of fact and returned the complaint to the complainant with liberty to take his case before a civil court. After hearing both sides, NCDRC says, “…we are of the opinion that both the fora below ought to have addressed the preliminary issue of jurisdiction first, dealt with it with reasons given and should have passed speaking orders on the issue before proceeding further into the case.” Reiterating that gratuity is undisputedly a service matter and is not within the purview of The Consumer Protection Act, the bench noted, “As far as bank’s contribution in the provident fund is concerned, though it is settled that an employee-member of the employees’ provident fund scheme is a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, 1986 the same cannot be said of the Bank’s provident fund scheme.” “…the pristine rule in vogue is that the issues relating to the entire gamut of terminal benefits as a whole, including provident fund (Bank’s contribution) and gratuity, have been the subject matter of adjudication by the competent services tribunal or civil court. Selectively segregating one particular benefit and taking it to the consumer protection fora is neither desirable nor tenable or sustainable,” NCDRC says, while disposing of the petition. Revision Petition No71 of 2013 Dated: 20 July 2022 Source: https://www.moneylife.in/article/terminal-benefits-like-gratuity-banks-contribution-in-pf-not-within-jurisdiction-of-consumer-courts-ncdrc/68023.html