Jago Grahak Jago

The Supreme Court observed that a consumer complaint filed by a company is maintainable. The court rejected the contention that the word ‘company’ is not covered within the definition of ‘person’ under Section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Court observed thus in an appeal under Section 67 of 2019 Act preferred by Kozyflex Mattresses Private Limited (KMPL) against the final order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) by which it rejected the consumer case against the SBI General Insurance Company Limited. The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that the Consumer Protection Act of 2019, has brought a body corporate within the definition of ‘person’, and said: “This by itself indicates that the legislature realized the incongruity in the unamended provision and has rectified the anomaly by including the word ‘company’ in the definition of ‘person’.Hence, the first preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent regarding ‘company’ not being covered by the definition of ‘person’ under Act of 1986 has no legs to stand and deserves to be rejected.” Advocate Krishna Kumar Singh represented the appellant while Advocate D. Vardhrajan represented the respondents. In this case, the appellant company (insured) prayed for the direction to the insurance company (insurer) to indemnify it for the loss caused by fire in the insured premises being the manufacturing unit of the insured. The insured was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of coir foam mattresses, pillows, cushions, and other coir by-products. It obtained a ‘Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy (Material Damage)’ and by an endorsement, the sum insured for stock was further enhanced. It was claimed that a massive fire incident took place in the manufacturing unit of the insured and an immediate action by way of informing the police and fire service station was taken and fire tenders were sent to the spot. The insured submitted an insurance claim for a sum of Rs. 3.31 crores i.e. Rs. 40,11,152/- for building, Rs.1,08,47,435/- for plant and machinery and Rs.1,87,72,489/- for stock. The insured made a representation to the Grievance Redressal Manager against the repudiation of its claim and the same did not meet the desired result, upon which the insured filed a complaint before the National Commission. The complaint was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to file a fresh complaint and thereafter, the subject complaint was filed, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurer. The National Commission upheld the repudiation letter, rejecting the complaint and hence, the insured approached the Apex Court. The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “The insured-appellant has taken a pertinent plea in the instant civil appeal that the copies of the surveyor’s report and the investigators’ report were not provided timely and thus, the insured-appellant did not get proper opportunity to rebut the same. This pertinent plea taken by the insured-appellant in the memo of appeal has not been specifically refuted and only a formal denial was offered in the counter-affidavit filed by the insurer-respondent.” The Court further said that the ends of justice require that the insured should have been provided proper opportunity to file its rebuttal/objections to the affidavit/reports submitted by the insurer before the National Commission and consequently, the complaint should be reconsidered on merits after providing such opportunity to the appellant. “… the appellant shall be permitted to file its rebuttal/rejoinder affidavit before the National Commission limited to the contents of the reports referred to supra. Thereafter, the matter shall be reheard and decided on merits afresh”, it directed. Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter to National Commission for considering and deciding the complaint afresh. Cause Title- M/s. Kozyflex Mattresses Private Limited v. SBI General Insurance Company Limited and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 234) Appearance:Appellant: Advocate Krishna Kumar Singh, AOR Sravan Kumar Karanam, Advocates Tayade Pranali Gowardhan, Mamatha Ralla, Rudroji Rakesh Kumar, and Shaik Sohil Akthar.Respondents: Advocates D. Vardhrajan, Rajat Khattry, Shagun Ruhil, and AOR Abhay Kumar. Source: Verdictum

Mumbai: A district consumer court has asked Air India to pay Rs 85,000 compensation to a 33-year-old man who missed work because of a 24-hour delay in Bangkok-Mumbai flight in 2018. It was alleged that while the Air India fight was to depart Bangkok on a Sunday evening, and land in Mumbai on early Monday, but it took off from Thailand on late Monday evening. The Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Commission said that as the complainant, Mohit Nigam, pointed out to deficiency in service, he is entitled to get compensation for physical and mental agony and loss of work. Nigam produced before the commission information received through a Right To Information (RTI) query which showed that the delay was due to the airline’s negligence. The fight was to arrive from New Delhi to Bangkok and then depart to Mumbai. Nigam said that he arrived at the airport three hours before the scheduled departure of 8 pm, collected his boarding pass and waited at the boarding gate but the flight was delayed. He added that the passengers were informed that flight would depart at 3 am and so everyone boarded the plane and waited for departure. However, later, it was announced that flight has been cancelled. This confusion continued till 5 am after which the fliers were provided accommodation. The commission said that a delay of almost 24 hours in departure of flight seems to have been caused because the opponent (Air India) at New Delhi Airport did not follow the scheduled mandatory requirements, which should have been done before departure of the flight. “It was duty of the opponent to follow mandatory check-ups before departure of flight, in which they failed. The RTI document submitted by the complainant clearly establishes the mistake on the part of the opponent,” the commission added. “As the complainant has pointed out deficiency in service of the opponent, he is entitled to get compensation for physical and mental agony, loss of work but not fully what he has prayed i.e. refund of ticket at both ends. It will be proper to impose costs of litigation upon the opponent,” the Commission said adding that it cannot be overlooked that this has caused inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant, for which he is entitled to be compensated. No Refund on Flight Tickets After announcing the compensation, the commission dismissed Nigam’s claims for a refund of the flight tickets. The commission noted that Nigam had travelled hassle-free from Mumbai to Bangkok. “The complainant’s claim for refund of ticket is not justified… It is not the case that the complainant had to bear additional expenses to purchase another air-ticket,” the commission said. Source: Times Now News

A retired non-resident Indian (NRI) has allegedly lost Rs 5.67 lakh when representatives of Kotak Securities dabbled in futures and options (F&O) with his money without his knowledge. In this regard, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has ordered Kotak Securities to refund the entire amount of money lost by them due to F&O trading, i.e., Rs 5,67,375 along with Rs 5,000 as compensation and Rs 1,000 as litigation expenses. According to the NRI complainant’s testimony before the district consumer forum, he was an individual, who after giving up his job abroad, was lured by the advertisement made by Kotak Securities and hence invested. “Attracted by the advertisements made by Kotak Securities, the investment for trading in shares in September 2007 was made. The two executives deputed by Kotak Securities promised that they will trade in the account only after getting confirmation for each transaction,” said the NRI individual. Lawyers say that generally, a stockbroker is not liable for the losses caused to an individual while trading in the stock market. “The inherent risk of investing lies with the individual and not the stockbroker. However, a broker can be held liable if the individual can prove that the stock market trading loss has resulted directly due to the broker’s negligence, misconduct, or failure to fulfil their obligations,” says Rishi Segal, Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of India. Kotak Securities contested that they are a member of the National Stock Exchange (NSE) and is acting as share broker and it is not their fault that money was lost trading in F&O(s). “The Complainant is not consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) as the trades were executed with a speculative motive to earn profit. It is true that he had invested Rs 10,00,750/- with Kotak Securities but the loss is the trading loss for which we are not responsible,” said Kotak Securities. According to Kotak Securities, “The Complainant concealed the fact that he received pay-in of funds from the statement of accounts claiming the disputed period. The copies of contract notes, bills, trade confirmation statement of account were forwarded to the Complainant in his email. The Complainant did not raise any objection against the trades executed in his account. After execution he had taken a pay out of Rs 58,496.54 as revealed by the ledger A/c dated 01.02.2008.” According to the complainant who is a retired NRI, Kotak Securities very well knew that for trading in the derivative segment of the stock market margin money has to be deposited. For this specific purpose (margin money), a separate bank account in the name of the complainant was opened and the demat account was linked to it. On November 15, 2007, Kotak Securities representatives contacted the retired NRI and asked for approval in a trade, which he refused to give and asked the company to forward the trade ledger file. “They did not forward the same. The company has done derivative trade in the account without the written authority and without any kind of instruction,” alleged the complainant in the consumer forum. Mar 07,2024 Source: Economic Time

India’s federal election commission has fixed flaws on its website that exposed data related to citizens’ requests for information related to their voting eligibility status, local political candidates and parties, and technical details about electronic voting machines. India is heading for its next general elections, expected between April and May, to elect the members of its parliament’s lower house who will form the new government. The Election Commission of India fixed the bugs in its Right to Information (RTI) portal, which allows citizens to request access to records of constitutional authorities, as well as state and central government institutions and private organizations receiving substantial funds from the Indian government. The bugs allowed access to the RTI requests, download transaction receipts and responses shared by the officials without properly authenticating user logins. Some of the exposed data included the RTI filing date, the questions asked, the applicant’s name and mailing address, the applicant’s poverty line status and RTI responses. Security researcher Karan Saini found the bugs in February and asked TechCrunch to help disclose them to the authorities after the Election Commission, the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) and the National Critical Information Infrastructure Protection Center did not initially respond to his requests to fix them. The bugs were fixed earlier this week following CERT-In’s intervention. “CERT-In has been coordinating the issue with the concerned authority. Recently, CERT-In has been informed by the concerned authority that the reported vulnerability has been fixed,” the Indian cybersecurity agency said in an email to TechCrunch on Tuesday. The agency also confirmed the fix to the researcher. Even though the RTI applications and responses are not confidential by Indian law, a judgment (PDF) by the Kolkata High Court in 2014 ordered authorities taking RTI applicants’ personal data “to hide such information and particularly from their website so that people at large would not know of the details.” By default, the Election Commission’s RTI portal does not provide access to individual RTI applications and responses without logging in, which means external access to the data and its ability to be scraped — because it is accessible without a login — made the flaws a privacy issue. Mar 08,2024 Source: Techcrunch

Mumbai, The Reserve Bank on Wednesday tweaked guidelines for Regulatory Sandbox (RS) scheme under which participating entities will have to comply with digital personal data protection norms. Regulatory Sandbox usually refers to live testing of new products or services in a controlled/test regulatory environment for which regulators may (or may not) permit certain relaxations for the limited purpose of the testing. The RBI had issued the ‘Enabling Framework for Regulatory Sandbox’ in August 2019, after wide ranging consultations with stakeholders. The objective of the RS is to foster responsible innovation in financial services, promote efficiency and bring benefit to consumers. On Wednesday, the RBI placed on its website the updated ‘Enabling Framework for Regulatory Sandbox’. The framework, it said has been revised based on the experience gained over the last four-and-half years in running four cohorts and feedback received from fintechs, banking partners and other stakeholders. “Among others, the timelines of the various stages of the Regulatory Sandbox process have been revised from seven months to nine months,” it said. Also, the updated framework requires sandbox entities to ensure compliance with provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. The target applicants for entry to the RS are fintech companies, including startups, banks, financial institutions, any other company, Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) and partnership firms, partnering with or providing support to financial services businesses. Feb 28,2024 Source: Economic Times