Try once more

I am holding 100 debentures of M/s Essar Oil Ltd worth Rs 10,500. These debentures matured for redemption on April 20, 2003. The company has failed to repay even the principal amount. I have submitted several letters/ appeals for immediate payment of the principal sum considering my case on compassionate grounds. All that seems to have fallen on deaf ears. I have not been able to elicit any response. Please suggest a way out of this problem.

Kanta Mukherjee,
17, Gorachand Bose Road,
Calcutta 700006

The company: No response.

The expert: The non-issuance of debentures and shares is a matter that falls outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act (COPRA). But I think your case can be presented as one of negligence and deficiency of service. You can find a precedent in the case of M/s D.C.M. Financial Services Ltd vs Col. Suneel Ahuja (2000 [2] Consumer Protection Reporter). In this case, the verdict went in favour of the complainant (Ahuja) and it was decreed that it is the duty of the company to pay up the redemption amount along with interest.

Broken promises

I deposited Rs 3,000 in a fixed deposit with Century Marine Venture Limited (address: 3D, Everest House, 46C, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta 700071). The maturity value of my certificate is Rs 4,107. The deposit matured on June 30, 2003. I deposited the relevant papers with the company authorities to facilitate repayment. The company, however, has shown no signs of clearing my dues. What can I do now?

Hara Krishna Singh,
Tentultala, Krishnaganj,
P.O. Bishnupur, Bankura

The company: No response.

The expert: This again is a case of clear deficiency in service. When a company or a firm invites deposits promising attractive returns and prompt repayment on maturity with full security, it is essentially an offer to the client. Therefore, such instances of delay or refusal of payment are a clear violation of the assurance given to depositors. In other words, this amounts to cheating on the consumer. So you have to hurry up and file a complaint under Section 24A of the COPRA. Make sure that the date of filing the complaint does not exceed a two-year period from that on which the cause took place. In your case it is June 30, 2003.

Many versions

I purchased an Electrolux washing machine (EW1045) on May 7, 2003, from authorised agent East India Trading Company (14/1B, Ezra Street, Calcutta 700001). I was issued a 24-month warranty from May 16, 2002. On February 25, 2004, the machine stopped functioning. The matter was reported to the company?s service department in Calcutta. A mechanic attended to the complaint the very next day. It emerged that the drums of the machine were jammed. Subsequently, the machine was sent to the workshop on February 28. I got back the machine in the first week of March. Much to my horror, it was in a very poor condition. There were scratch marks all over the body and the soap box was completely broken. The mechanic switched on the machine for a trial run and it started making loud, screeching noises. At the time, I was not present at home. My family members requested the mechanic to take the machine back to the workshop once again. He refused to do so after which my wife wrote a note on the challan that he had brought. Then, the machine was once again collected from my residence for a re-check. It was sent back on March 23. Surprisingly, it was still not functioning properly. Finally, we received a letter from the company (dated March 29, 2004) stating that the warranty of the machine had already expired. I did not let the matter rest at that. I sent off a number of letters to the company office at Gurgaon. I have not received a reply to any of those. Please tell me what I should do.

Nirmal Kumar Shroff,
22/1 Armenian Street,
Calcutta 700001

The company: Originally, the customer had purchased an Electrolux washing machine (model AP-800) on January 17, 2000. This machine carried a two-year warranty, expiring on January 16, 2002. A fortnight before January 16, 2002, he wrote to us complaining of some problem with the machine. A new machine was then sent to his residence on May 5 as replacement. The customer found some faults with it and sent it back. Subsequently, yet another machine was sent to him a week later. As the manufacturer?s warranty is calculated from the date of original purchase (which was January 17, 2000) it was not possible to provide additional warranty on the replacement. This was conveyed to the customer by the principal (M/s Electrolux Kelvinator Limited) at the time of delivery. In spite of this, we tried to attend to the customer?s grievances to the best of our abilities. The machine?s bearings were changed and the scratch marks on the body were removed. It was also repainted. All this was done without levying any service charge as our aim was to satisfy the customer.

Our principal has now refused to accommodate the customer?s whims any further. The feedback we have received from them is that no genuine defect or problem was found in the machine. They are not going to entertain any demand for fresh replacement.

East India Trading Co.
14/1B, Ezra Street,
Calcutta 700001

The expert: There are several contradictions in the two versions that we have read here. I would suggest that the matter be taken up one last time with the principal company. After that, you can approach a lawyer to plan further action.

Write to the special committee

My daughter and I had jointly invested Rs 15,000 in a fixed deposit scheme with the Lloyds Finance Limited. It was a one-year scheme and it matured on March 27, 1999. Subsequently, I surrendered the original deposit receipt at the Lloyds office in Calcutta for repayment. On further persuasion, the company gave me a cheque for Rs 4,500 (30 per cent of the principal amount) along with a covering letter dated March 27, 2000. The letter stated that the payment was in accordance with an order passed by the Company Law Board, Western Region Bench, Mumbai.

We were supposed to receive the second instalment (also 30 per cent of the principal amount) as per the order. Unfortunately, that has not happened so far. In the meantime, we have sent several letters to the company as also the Company Law Board. There has been no response from either. What is the solution to this problem?

Banani Sarkar,
12D/33 D.P.P. Road,
Naktala,
Calcutta 700047

The company: No response.

The expert: The Bombay High Court has now appointed a special committee to look into the affairs of Lloyds Finance. The committee chairperson is Justice B.R. Datar. It is projected that the committee shall formulate a scheme for payment depositors and other creditors. You can approach it with your complaint.

Write to Justice B.R. Datar, Chairperson - Special Committee, Lloyds Finance Limited, Unit no. 3, Ground Floor, Raheja Centre, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021.