raja_kumar
21 February 2009 at 11:43
1) I reside in Chennai (formerly Madras) in Tamilnadu state, India. I had purchased 4 Number of T610 sony ericcson mobiles online from an online Trading firm.
2) The supplier was located in Mumbai (formerly Bombay) in Maharashtra state, India.
3) The mobiles (all the four pieces) had developed series of problems and was sent to the supplier very frequently for service/replacement. The supplier had attended to the defects a number of times and returned. The defects could not be rectified in full and the supplier had finally replaced the mobiles but with some used mobiles available with themselves under the disguise of replacement.
4) The replacement with used mobiles became evident from the checking of the IMEI numbers of the mobiles received. In addition the replaced phones contained messages and Ring tones recorded in hindi(language).
5) When this was brought to the notice of the firm, they agreed immediately to replace all the four phones with fresh(new) pieces. The issue had lasted more than a year and initially the firm had replaced two mobiles.
6) Later when the remaining two phones were sent for replacement, the company initially refused replacement stating that the warranty period of one year had lapsed. Thereafter, when it was pointed out that the issue was agreed to be settled by way of replacement the company took back the balance of two phones but replaced them with some hyundai make korean phones. The phones lacked many of the features available with the T610 sony ericcson mobiles (originally purchased) and it was also verified from the company website that the hyundai make korean phones supplied had a Maximum retail price of Rs.1600 each against the T610 sony ericcson phones which were originally purchased at Rs.4000 each.
7) This was brought to the notice of the firm and the firm once again agreed to take back the Korean mobiles and replace the same with some VK brand PDA phones which costed same as the T610 sony ericcson mobile. The company had also requested ‘not to put into use’ the two Korean phones supplied by them. However, the company had not replaced the phones as agreed and the Korean mobiles were also remaining idle.
8) I had requested the company regularly over phone and also thro’ e-mails initially to send me the replacement and at a later date to return the cost of mobiles together with interest, fearing that any more replacement even if occurred would lack warranty clause from day one of the supply and with the present poor state of affairs I would be left helpless.
9) The company was also sent a show cause notice on the above lines over e-mail and later by speed post threatening consumer action in the consumer courts in chennai the state of tamil nadu.
10) The company had not replied and responded as on date.
11) It is not clear as to which courts the jurisdiction to adjudicate the above case lies, whether the courts in maharastra (Bombay) or chennai (tamilnadu) considering the fact that the purchases were made online?
12) I would be handicapped if I had to put up trial in Bombay since it is located nearly 1400 kms away from my residence in Chennai and cost cannot be borne?
13) Whether the case shall be submitted over post to the consumer forum in Bombay in maharashtra for admission and trial and if the court requires for a physical presence shall I demand travel allowances from the company at that time?
14) I had spent frequently a lot of money towards courier, packing, phone charges etc., for the purpose of despatch of mobiles for repair and replacement
15) Please help to continue on the above case!
Thanking everyone in Advance!
Yours truly
Raja_kumar
raja_kumar
21 February 2009 at 10:49
I hold a Barclays credit card.
My credit card statement for the month of January reflected a balance of Rs.180.00 to be repaid on the due date of 22nd January 2009.
I had repaid the above amount on the due dates vide my cheque drawn on ICICI Bank. However, due to some problem in fund transfer between my linked accounts, the cheque got returned due to “Insufficient funds”.
The Barclays credit card alerted me via SMS about the Cheque return and as soon as the SMS was received on 27th January 2009, I had repaid the entire amount due to the credit card thro’ Visa Money Transfer.
Now the Barclays Credit Card had sent me card statement for month of February 2009, charging me a sum of Rs.1235.96 towards penalties. The statement contains no transactions but only penalties towards Cheque return Fee and Late payment Fee as below:
(i) Returned Cheque Fee Rs.500.00
Service Tax at 12.36% Rs.61.80
(ii) Late Payment Fee Rs.600.00
Service Tax at 12 % Rs.74.16
Total Rs.1235.96
I had contacted the customer care service of the Barclays credit card over phone and via e-mail requesting them to waive or withdraw at least the late payment fee since I was a prompt payer of my dues and had never defaulted before. The Barclays credit card had refused to help me and waive or withdraw any of the charges stating that they had levied the charges as per the rules.
I feel frustrated and helpless since I had to pay penalty in excess of seven times of my transacted amount. This is besides the cheque return fee charged by my bankers viz., icici bank.
Can anyone help me in this to proceed further?
What the RBI and the laws of the land can do in this issue?
Shall I pay the card the penalties demanded in part or full (under protest) or stop payment to the card and proceed with arbitration in a legal forum?
Please Help!
Thanks to everyone in Advance!!
Raja_kumar
Juridiction of consumer courts to adjudicate a online purchase
1) I reside in Chennai (formerly Madras) in Tamilnadu state, India. I had purchased 4 Number of T610 sony ericcson mobiles online from an online Trading firm.
2) The supplier was located in Mumbai (formerly Bombay) in Maharashtra state, India.
3) The mobiles (all the four pieces) had developed series of problems and was sent to the supplier very frequently for service/replacement. The supplier had attended to the defects a number of times and returned. The defects could not be rectified in full and the supplier had finally replaced the mobiles but with some used mobiles available with themselves under the disguise of replacement.
4) The replacement with used mobiles became evident from the checking of the IMEI numbers of the mobiles received. In addition the replaced phones contained messages and Ring tones recorded in hindi(language).
5) When this was brought to the notice of the firm, they agreed immediately to replace all the four phones with fresh(new) pieces. The issue had lasted more than a year and initially the firm had replaced two mobiles.
6) Later when the remaining two phones were sent for replacement, the company initially refused replacement stating that the warranty period of one year had lapsed. Thereafter, when it was pointed out that the issue was agreed to be settled by way of replacement the company took back the balance of two phones but replaced them with some hyundai make korean phones. The phones lacked many of the features available with the T610 sony ericcson mobiles (originally purchased) and it was also verified from the company website that the hyundai make korean phones supplied had a Maximum retail price of Rs.1600 each against the T610 sony ericcson phones which were originally purchased at Rs.4000 each.
7) This was brought to the notice of the firm and the firm once again agreed to take back the Korean mobiles and replace the same with some VK brand PDA phones which costed same as the T610 sony ericcson mobile. The company had also requested ‘not to put into use’ the two Korean phones supplied by them. However, the company had not replaced the phones as agreed and the Korean mobiles were also remaining idle.
8) I had requested the company regularly over phone and also thro’ e-mails initially to send me the replacement and at a later date to return the cost of mobiles together with interest, fearing that any more replacement even if occurred would lack warranty clause from day one of the supply and with the present poor state of affairs I would be left helpless.
9) The company was also sent a show cause notice on the above lines over e-mail and later by speed post threatening consumer action in the consumer courts in chennai the state of tamil nadu.
10) The company had not replied and responded as on date.
11) It is not clear as to which courts the jurisdiction to adjudicate the above case lies, whether the courts in maharastra (Bombay) or chennai (tamilnadu) considering the fact that the purchases were made online?
12) I would be handicapped if I had to put up trial in Bombay since it is located nearly 1400 kms away from my residence in Chennai and cost cannot be borne?
13) Whether the case shall be submitted over post to the consumer forum in Bombay in maharashtra for admission and trial and if the court requires for a physical presence shall I demand travel allowances from the company at that time?
14) I had spent frequently a lot of money towards courier, packing, phone charges etc., for the purpose of despatch of mobiles for repair and replacement
15) Please help to continue on the above case!
Thanking everyone in Advance!
Yours truly
Raja_kumar