SpeakUp

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

Whether social media has helped improve our lives is a debatable question. However, it is undoubtedly helping criminals dupe gullible people more often, quickly and efficiently. While greed and fear remain the top two reasons why people become victims of cybercrime, overhyped patriotism is a new ploy to dupe people. This week, I write about how fraudsters are collecting money for the ‘welfare of battle casualties’ and how the promise of loans at discounted rates from the government is scamming people. Fake Messages To Assist Battle Casualties The ordinary Indian may not wear her patriotism on her sleeve, but most of us have deep respect for our defence services and the highest sacrifice implicit when they sign on to serve the nation. White-collar criminals are using this inherent goodwill and patriotism to cheat people. They are seeking money from people to help battle casualties and their families and some are even asking for money to buy weapons and equipment for the Indian army! The contributions are solicited through bank accounts that have been created to dupe people. The fraud is widespread enough for the Indian army to issue a formal clarification asking people to refrain from sending money to such bank accounts. The message says, “Beware of such fraudulent messages. Indian Army operates two accounts for the welfare of veer naris, battle casualties and their dependents and these accounts are solely used for the same. Authenticated details are available at https://indianarmy.nic.in/home.” So, respect the services of our defence services; but check before you rush off to donate money. Govt Loan Offers at Discounted Rates The Delhi police have arrested a notorious cheater for duping over 200 people in the past four years on the pretext of providing Pradhan Mantri Mudra loan at discounted rates, says a report from IANS. Raj Kumar, a resident of Delhi, mainly targeted poor people by inducing them, in the name of a government loan offer. He used to publish advertisements on social media and also pasted posters with lucrative offers in the name of ‘Pradhan Mantri Mudra Loan’. He also used to collect documents from victims to provide them with loans. After collecting the documents, Raj Kumar asked for money for clearance fees, registration fees or taxes. So, the next time anyone offers you a government loan at a discounted interest rate, be careful. Information on government loan schemes is easily available in the public domain; so, a little checking would help avoid a loss. KBC Lottery Cost Rs39 Lakh Despite the repeated public warnings by government, regulators and enforcement agencies, people still tend to fall for fake lotteries in a big way. They also fail to realise that you cannot have won a jackpot if you have to pay charges and fees. A woman from Hyderabad lost Rs39 lakh to cyber fraudsters who cheated her by saying she had won the ‘Kaun Banega Crorepati (KBC) lottery’. She received a phone call informing her that she had won the KBC lottery worth Rs25 lakh. The caller told her that she needed to make some payments to withdraw her prize money. A gang member masquerading as a bank manager outlined the claim procedure and convinced her to make deposits towards various charges, says a report from India Today. Cybercrime police of Hyderabad city arrested one Rakesh Kumar from Patna for fraud. Police seized 16 mobile phones, 73 debit cards, 30 SIM cards, 11 bank passbooks and two chequebooks during the search. Police have cautioned people not to believe any lotteries like the KBC lottery or Naptol and lucky draws announced by unknown persons. Reward Points Fraud With the cost of communication equipment coming down, criminals have increased its usage. They are not only using the latest devices but are also running call centres for their duping operations. Recently, Hyderabad police arrested 11 persons, including four women from Noida, by busting a call centre used for cyber frauds. The initial investigation revealed that the accused are involved in 18 cases across Telangana and 101 crimes all over India. According to the police, these criminals used to call the victims and introduce themselves as bank officials calling from the head office. They lured the victims in the name of giving extra reward points for their credit or debit cards or helping redeem the reward points. When you use your credit or debit card, the issuer offers some rewards points with a notional value. For example, when you buy an item worth Rs100, the card issuer may give you five points as a reward. The issuer may allow a notional value of Re1 to one reward point. You can redeem these reward points for buying some items. These fraudsters used to convince the victims to reveal their card details for redeeming the reward points. When victims share their card details, the accused make a point of sales (POS) transaction, obtain the one-time passcodes (OTPs) from the victims and complete the transactions. One woman complainant lost Rs1 lakh in three transactions in the name of redeeming reward points. So, the next time someone calls from your ‘bank’ and wants to help you ‘redeem’ reward points, be careful. Better visit the card issuer’s official website or use the authentic mobile app and check or redeem your reward points. If You Are a Victim of Cyberfraud Do report cyber crimes to the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal http://cybercrime.gov.in or call on 1930, the toll-free helpline number. You can also send messages to the National Cyber Crime Reporting agency on social media through their handles @Cyberdost (Twitter), CyberDostI4C (Facebook), cyberdostl4C (Instagram), and cyberdosti4c (Telegram). Source: MoneyLife

More than one in two Indian consumers who use instant loan apps are facing very high interest charges, extortion and data misuse, as the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) takes a tough stand against unregistered digital loan lending apps, a new report showed on 4th july. While 58% of citizens said when they or someone in their family/ household staff took a loan using instant loan apps in the past two years, they were charged annual interest of over 25%. Over 54% of citizens surveyed experienced extortion or data misuse during the collection process, according to the report by community social media platform LocalCircles. The platform on Tuesday wrote to the RBI governor Shaktikanta Das and Union IT minister Ashwini Vaishnav, requesting them to take cognizance of the survey findings and take further action on such instant loan apps. According to MeitY, it has blocked 27 such fraudulent instant loan apps. RBI has also disallowed non-bank prepaid payment instruments (PPIs) from loading credit. “The PPI-MD (PPI-master direction) does not permit loading of PPIs from credit lines. Such practice, if followed, should be stopped immediately. Any non-compliance in this regard may attract penal action under provisions contained in the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007,” according to the latest RBI directive. The Maharashtra police cyber crime team recently wrote to Google Play Store, asking to remove 69 loan apps after receiving hundreds of complaints of harassment and threats made by fraudulent loan recovery agents to customers. India has witnessed an emergence of instant loan providers through smartphone-enabled fin-tech lending companies to help people meet shortages of funds. Some instant loan apps, according to consumers, charge as much as a 500% interest rate and use extortion methods to collect money from borrowers or loan defaulters, according to LocalCircles. “Some citizens also claim to be getting phone calls for repayment of loans taken over a year ago, even though they have paid the amount taken or more,” the report mentioned. On the other hand, there are many reports of borrowers’ personal information, including Aadhaar card, PAN card, etc, being shared with third-party platforms. “People have also reported in a few cases, how their parents in a different location received messages about the loan payment which they had already made some time back,” the report noted. Source: IANS

After the COVID-19 pandemic, many people found themselves looking for a job. The gig economy also means increased hire-and-fire by start-ups and tech-based companies. A large number of job aspirants in India make it a huge opportunity for fraudsters to prey on people who are already desperate for income. Fake job rackets are spreading over social media and it is imperative that you keep identification documents out of their reach.  Fake Job Placement Scams A placement agency asked a young girl in Delhi to pay a registration fee of Rs3,500 and Rs8,000 just for a  job interview. She paid the money through Google Pay and, after the ‘interview’, was given an appointment letter by Sunshine HR Global Services. When the girl turned up at the company for a job, she discovered that the appointment letter was forged. She has filed a complaint with the police. The Delhi police raided the office of a job consultancy firm at Bhikaji Cama Place and arrested seven people, including five women, who had allegedly cheated over 250 job aspirants of around Rs23 lakh. According to the police, the firm operated a fake call centre in the name of job placements. A raid led to the recovery of 16 mobile phones, two laptops, several registers and forged appointment letter pads in the name of Sunshine HR Global Services. Similarly, a message is being circulated on WhatsApp in the name of the global multinational Amazon, offering recruitment. It is ostensibly being sent by a general manager of  Amazon and looking to hire a team of part-time employees. The message says, “You can work part-time on your phone. A part-time job takes 10-20 minutes! Newcomers get 101RS immediately. Daily salary: 3000Rs-5000RS…” This is a fraudulent message, and Amazon has already clarified that it has nothing to do with the post. “Amazon or its employees will never contact you to let you know about offers or jobs opportunity from Amazon. You can refer to http://amzn.to/3w1MIH3, for the available positions and apply accordingly,” said the company in a tweet. In case you received such a message, report the number to WhatsApp, which ensures that it gets blocked. Fake Job and Loan Racket Using Other People’s KYC We, at Moneylife and Moneylife Foundation, often warn people to be careful while sharing know your customer (KYC) documents with anyone. We also advise them not to share a photocopy of any KYC documents without mentioning the purpose and date while self-attesting it. Here is why we issue these warnings. According to IANS, Monikumar Kaipeng from Agartala used KYC documents of tribal people of Tripura to obtain SIM cards to commit cyber crimes. He also opened bank accounts in the names of tribals by paying them a small sum. These accounts would be used as money mules to route payments in large-scale fraud. The masterminds of this fraud are two African nationals, Fasoyin Avaloho and Adbe Ange Alfred Adoni, living in Bengaluru without a valid visa or passport. This duo cheated people by promising them jobs and loans and getting the money transferred to different bank accounts opened in the name of the tribals. They also made calls using the SIMs obtained by Kaipeng, assured victims of gifts, and got the money transferred to these accounts. The police have arrested all three individuals and seized four SIM cards and three mobile phones which they were using to cheat gullible people. The police have also seized six debit cards, besides tracing four bank accounts opened in the names of the tribals. Beware of Gaddibaaz or Lifafebaaz Gang The Delhi police has arrested three members of a gang of cheats known as ‘Gaddibaaz’ or ‘Lifafebaaz’. ‘Gaddi’ refers to a bundle—in this case, a bundle of currency that is used to trap people, while Lifafa is an envelope – which is integral to the modus operandi of these gangs. The Gaddibaaz gang cheats people by persuading them to exchange wads of brand new currency with loose used currency notes. They create what appears to be a bundle of currency with original notes at the top and bottom while the rest are plan paper. They then entice people to part with cash and valuables in exchange for the fake bundle of notes. To win the victim’s confidence, they show the original note from the little corner of the packet and tend to flee when they have got people to part with valuables. Notorious criminals are often part of these Gaddibaaz or Lifafebaaz gangs. Earlier, these gangs used to target people waiting for public transport, particularly at bus stands or on roadsides. Sometimes, the fraudsters pose as policemen or officials of law enforcement agencies. The Lifafebaaz gang masquerades as police or enforcement officials. Under the pretext of a check or investigation, they ask victims to put their cash and valuables in an envelope. People realise they are duped when they find that the envelope that was returned to them after the inspection has been replaced by a similar-looking envelope before the fraudsters absconded. These gangs are often found to operate near banks. Last week, following a tip-off, the Delhi police arrested three members of one such gang that cheated a bank customer in Fatehpur Beri of Rs55,000. Source: moneylife

With value pricing, convenience, selection and fast deliveries offered by e-platforms, for many household consumers, the migration from going to a market to shopping for most things online has become a permanent change. While the majority of consumers relies on product reviews and ratings, according to a survey, nearly 60% of the consumers say their negative ratings and reviews are not published by e-commerce platforms. The survey, conducted by LocalCircles, also reveals that almost 90% of the customers say that the e-commerce platforms should restrict low-rated products from sellers to be relisted as another product. The majority of consumers relies on product reviews and ratings on e-commerce sites before buying a product Platforms that provide trustworthy information on reviews and ratings will always have a competitive advantage and will win consumer trust in the long run. In the study, the first question asked consumers, “When buying something on eCommerce sites, how do you use ratings and review the information that is available?” Almost 64% of respondent citizens said they ‘always go through them’, and 26% said they ‘sometimes go through them’. Further breaking down the poll, 7% said they ‘only check them for expensive or non-branded products’ while 3% said they ‘never go through them’. This indicated that majority of consumers relies on product reviews and ratings on e-commerce sites before buying a product. 65% consumers say that product ratings on e-commerce sites have a positive bias on majority of the products The next question in the study focused on the quality of ratings on e-commerce sites and asked consumers, “How do they find ratings on e-commerce sites for majority of the products?” About 65% said they found ‘positive bias’ and 18% find it ‘accurate’. There were also 16% who said they found ‘negative bias’ of the product, while 1% said that the ‘sites that I use do not have product ratings’. Consumers continue to find ratings on e-commerce sites positively biased in the past three years In a similar study conducted in 2019 by LocalCircles, 62% of consumers had found ratings on e-commerce sites for majority of the products as ‘positively bias’, 12% said it was ‘accurate’, while 19% ‘negatively bias’, and 7% said they ‘don’t look at product rating’. In the 2022 survey, 65% found the product ratings on e-commerce sites to be positively biased indicating that sellers may be influencing ratings for their products to attract consumers and platforms are not proactively acting in such situations, LocalCircles says. 62% consumers say that product review on e-commerce sites has a positive bias on majority of the products Similar to the previous question on ratings, the next question in the study focused on the quality of reviews on e-commerce sites and asked consumers, “How do you find reviews on e-commerce sites for majority of the products”. Almost 62% said ‘positive bias’, 17% said ‘accurate’, and 13% said ‘negative bias’. There were also 2% of consumers who said, ‘sites they use don’t have product ratings’, while 6% said they ‘don’t look at product reviews’ while making online purchases. Consumers continue to find reviews on e-commerce sites positively biased in the past three years When it came to reviews, positive bias has increased by 5% from 57% to 62%, while accuracy has reduced by 3% as compared to the 2019 survey. This indicated that consumers continue to find reviews on e-commerce sites positively biased over the last three years, LocalCircles says. One of the top issues reported by consumers has been how sellers themselves, via friends and family networks and, in some cases, even via public relations and influencers, get purchases organised which are designed just to rate and review the product highly. Such a practice gives an initial positive ratings and review boost for the seller’s products while it misleads the consumers. 80% consumers had one or more product they ordered based on high rating on e-commerce sites, not meeting their expectations The next question in the study asked consumers “How frequently has it happened in the last 12 months that a product with high rating on an e-commerce site did not meet your expectations?” Only 5% said it has happened ‘over 5 times’, 27% said it happened ‘3-5 times’ and 48% it happened ‘1-2 times’. There were also 6% who said it ‘never happened’, 2% said ‘they don’t look at ratings before ordering’ while 12% did not have an opinion. On an aggregate basis, 80% consumers who have shopped on e-commerce sites have had one or more cases in the past 12 months where a highly rated product did not meet their expectations, LocalCircles says. Percentage of consumers for who the product received wasn’t commensurate to the published rating, rose in the past 3 years When a similar question was asked in 2019, the percentage of consumers for whom the product received wasn’t commensurate to the published ratings was 62%. This percentage has increased to 80% in the past three years. Further, the percentage of citizens saying it never happened to them in the past 12 months reduced from 17% to 6% in the same period. This clearly shows that many sellers are somehow able to plant high ratings and reviews of their products to influence the consumers and make them purchase it only for the consumer to regret later. Only 23% consumers say that their negative reviews or ratings on e-commerce sites were published as it is When the study asked consumers, “What has been your experience when you post a low rating or a negative review of a product on e-commerce sites/apps?” only 23% said that their negative reviews or ratings on ecommerce sites were ‘published as it is.’ There were, however, 41% of consumers who said ‘it is not published sometimes’ and 17% said ‘it is not published at all’ while 19% did not have an opinion. This is currently the single biggest issue with e-commerce ratings and reviews where a genuine, verified consumer review or rating is rejected by e-commerce platforms under the category

Citing guidelines issued by the central consumer protection authority (CCPA), the ministry of consumer affairs says, no hotels or restaurants can add service charges automatically or by default to the food bill. The guidelines, issued by CCPA, stipulate that hotels or restaurants shall not add service charges automatically or by default in the food bill and no collection of service charges shall be done by any other name. “No hotel or restaurant shall force a consumer to pay the service charge and shall clearly inform the consumer that service charge is voluntary, optional and at consumer’s discretion.” “No restriction on entry or provision of services based on the collection of service charge shall be imposed on consumers. The service charge shall not be collected by adding it along with the food bill and levying GST on the total amount,” the CCPA says. Consumers have registered many complaints in the national consumer helpline (NCH) about levying service charges. The issues consumers raise include restaurants making service charges compulsory and adding it in the bill by default, suppressing that paying such charges is optional and voluntary and embarrassing consumers if they resist paying the service charge. Various cases relating to the levying of service charges have also been decided by consumer commissions in favour of consumers, holding them as an unfair trade practice and in violation of consumer rights. After reviewing the complaints, CCPA decided to issue guidelines for preventing unfair trade practices and violation of consumer rights regarding levying service charges in hotels and restaurants. It says, “If any consumer finds that a hotel or restaurant is levying service charge in violation to the guidelines, a consumer may make a request to the concerned hotel or restaurant to remove service charge from the bill amount. Also, the consumer may lodge a complaint on the NCH, which works as an alternate dispute redressal mechanism at the pre-litigation level by calling 1915 or through the NCH mobile app.” “The consumer may also file a complaint against unfair trade practice with the Consumer Commission. The Complaint can also be filed electronically through e-daakhil portal www.e-daakhil.nic.in for its speedy and effective redressal. Furthermore, the consumer may submit a complaint to the district collector of the concerned district for investigation and subsequent proceeding by the CCPA. The complaint may also be sent to the CCPA by e-mail at com-ccpa@nic.in,” the release says.  Source: MoneyLife

While more and more e-commerce and financial technology (fin-tech) companies are joining hands with lenders to provide ‘buy-now-pay-later’ (BNPL) schemes, these products can impose high monetary costs and there are gaps in customer protection safeguards in many of them, says a research report. A study by Dvara Research says, “… (our) examination suggests that BNPL products can impose high monetary costs that may be comparable to those imposed on credit cards usage – we caveat this by saying that a more thorough examination of actual costs based on customers’ usage of BNPL products and credit cards over time is warranted.” “We were also able to discover significant misalignment between BNPL providers’ practices and key conduct obligations towards customers. Such misalignment could impose non-monetary costs, which include loss of creditworthiness, personal data-related harms, and misconduct from providers and their agents,” say the authors of the report, Madhu Srinivas and Srikara Prasad. BNPL products have become one of the popular modes for customers to finance their retail purchases. BNPL products are being positioned as challengers to credit cards that can make credit more accessible to customers at little to no cost. Dvara Research specifically studied 10 BNPL-providers, including Ola Money Postpaid, Amazon Pay Later, Paytm Postpaid, LazyPay, Unicard, FlexMoney, ZestMoney, slice, Simpl, and Kissht. It found that customers incur different costs before and after defaulting on BNPL repayments, with an annual percentage rate (APR) between 0% to 36%. “In all the instances where a credit line was sanctioned, the sanctioned limit was much larger than the intended amount of purchase. While this prima facie appears harmless, it could encourage indebtedness especially since, as highlighted previously, the onus of assessing the suitability of credit is placed on the borrower.” “The problem of indebtedness is further complicated by the fact that all BNPL providers, or their financiers, have a clause in their terms and conditions (T&Cs) allowing them to recall the loan at any time and without assigning any reason. Thus, the borrower with maximum or near-maximum utilisation of credit limit could face a severe liquidity crunch if her loan were to be recalled. These concerns can be partly mitigated by sanctioning a credit line that is the lower of the maximum credit sanctionable to the borrower and the maximum credit limit as requested by the borrower,” Dvara Research says. Another customer protection concern that emerged from the research was an instance of unilateral cancellation of the credit line by the BNPL-provider, immediate recall of the outstanding amount and non-intimation about it to the borrower. It says, “Such an action, while consistent with the provider’s T&Cs, raises consumer protection concerns. The immediate recall of the credit line and its non-intimation to the customer puts her at risk of potential default and subsequent impairment of her credit score.” Further, BNPL-providers’ T&Cs are misaligned with key customer protection regulations, contravening key conduct obligations. “Customers are at a risk of unknowingly incurring debt, borrowing credit that is unsuitable for them, and being subject to aggressive debt collection practices,” it says. “Barring a couple of rejections, all volunteers successfully registered for the BNPL product and made their purchase. However, specific information about the costs of the BNPL product, like interest rate, processing fee and other charges, was not prominently displayed before the onboarding process. The volunteers were able to get this information on the websites of all the BNPL-providers except FlexMoney.” According to the report, while most BNPL-providers provided a key facts statement (KFS), some BNPL-providers did not do so. In some cases where KFS was provided, the KFS omitted key details like pricing, customer obligations and penalties. Further, some providers, like Amazon PayLater, and Ola PostPaid, disclose the name of the bank or the non-banking finance company (NBFC) that will provide credit. “However, some providers, like ZestMoney and Unicard, do not disclose the financier’s identity until the customer’s loan is sanctioned. This can contravene the Reserve Bank of India (RBI)’s circular on loans sourced by banks and NBFCs through digital lending platforms,” it added. At the same time, Dvara Research says, most financiers or lenders also do not display the names of their partners in digital lending. Further, financiers have obtained the right to reject credit applications without disclosing a reason. “The financier’s right to reject any credit application without disclosing the reasons for the rejection featured in all the providers’ T&Cs,” the report says. According to the report, some BNPL-providers, like Amazon Pay Later and Unicard, explicitly place the responsibility of assessing the suitability of the credit line on the customer. “This ‘buyer beware’ approach is problematic and contravenes the Right to Suitability that customers have under the RBI Charter of Customer Rights. Provisions like these can compound customer protection concerns. Evidence from prominent BNPL markets suggests that many customers who avail the BNPL services are rarely aware about entering into a credit contract.” The report from Dvara Research also highlights how potentially unlawful clauses are hidden in the fine print by BNPL players. It says, “Some clauses in the T&Cs tread a grey line by vacating customer protection safeguards and binding customers with unfair obligations that are potentially illegal. For instance, one clause in Unicard’s T&Cs waived customers’ safeguards under usury and any other laws relating to charging of interest. This clause vacates the protections afforded to customers by usury laws and interest rate related guidelines of RBI.” “Ideally, unlawful clauses are deemed to be void by default. However, such clauses will have to be challenged before the court or arbitration tribunal to be legally voided. Unfortunately, customers may be ill-equipped to challenge clauses in providers’ T&Cs. Customers may be unable to recognise unlawful clauses. Even if they recognise them, customers may be unable to challenge the clauses due to the monetary and time costs that are associated with doing so,” the report says. Most BNPL-providers collected different kinds of personal information, including education, occupation and contact information, for on-boarding and verification purposes. However, Dvara Research says the privacy policies that governed the use

Almost 38%-40% complaints to the National Consumer Helpline (1519) were against the e-commerce companies last month, a top government official said on Monday. “A powerful person in Delhi called me and said, I had ordered two chairs from Amazon and only one has been delivered. I have been complaining for three days but nobody is giving me a hearing,” Rohit Kumar Singh, secretary, ministry of consumer affairs, told a gathering to discuss such issues here. Even when it is only about 8%-9% of India’s total trade, e-commerce companies are gaining prominence every passing day, he said, however, “Last month, almost 38%-40% complaints on the National Consumer Helpline (1519) were against the e-commerce companies.” E-commerce is a faceless transaction as against the traditional business in which goods were purchased from the neighbourhood shops and such things as ordering two and getting delivery of only one chair would never happen with the traditional shopkeepers, he pointed out. Stating that all commerce is being consolidated into chosen few big players. For example, e-commerce has two-three big names, taxi aggregators have two-three, food & beverage operators sector has two big players and, if we look at telecom operators, there are just three-four big players, the Secretary said adding, “as this consolidation happens, these entities become more and more powerful and the power balance with the consumer is into limbo. It becomes imperative (for us) to stand strong with the consumer and the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions – national, states and district levels – should ensure that the consumer does not lose his right.” Earlier, the consumer affairs department had already issued notices to Ola/Uber taxi services and also to several restaurants in connection with service charges. Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.