Out of gear

I purchased a new car (Maruti-800, WB-02-Q-3599) from the dealer, Auto Hitech Pvt. Ltd, at 97A, Southern Avenue, Calcutta, in March 2003. Later, while checking the relevant documents related to the purchase, I realised that I had made an extra payment of Rs 10,721:

i) An extra amount, higher than the invoice price by Rs 4,095, was collected from me through the quotation submitted earlier.

ii) Two EMIs amounting to Rs 6,526 was collected from me but was not paid to the concerned bank with which the dealer had arranged for my car loan.

iii) A hypothecation charge of Rs 100 was paid twice.

Since December 13, 2003, I have written several letters to the dealer. There has been no response to any of my letters, but for a token phone call. I also wrote to the advisor, engineering department of Maruti Udyog Ltd, on January 4, 2003 and finally, to the managing director of Maruti Udyog Ltd expressing my unhappiness at the dealer’s attitude. There have been no responses to those letters either. Another case of major concern involves my old car WB-02-G-3863, which was accepted by the dealer at an agreed price, almost at the same time the new car was handed over to me.

Despite the agreed deal, my old car is still in my name as the dealer has not yet registered the transfer of ownership with the Motor Vehicle Authority. I reported this to the managing director but, surprisingly, both the dealer and the manufacturer have chosen to ignore the issues raised by me. What can I do now?

T.K. Banerjee,
119, Southern Avenue,
12th Floor (South East),
Calcutta-700029

The company: No response from the company.

The expert: From the above allegations made by the complainant, it appears that the dealer on whom the complainant relied and from whom the car (Maruti-800, WB-02-Q-3599) was purchased, has tried to make illegal gains out of the deal, if so possible.

The said act and conduct as alleged, tantamount to unfair trade practice and the complainant can approach the consumer fora under whose jurisdiction the dealer has its office in Calcutta. It may kindly be noted that for the harassment so caused by such a dealer as alleged, the complainant can claim compensation in addition to redress.

Bitter pill

We, about 260 retired employees of the Rourkela Steel plant, SAIL, residing presently in and around Calcutta, are facing serious problems regarding our medical treatment. We have been offered free medical treatment identity cards for self and spouse for treatment in medical units of SAIL in Calcutta. But, neither specialist doctors nor any pathological laboratories, or even the required medicines are available at these medical units. The company has made an arrangement with the United India Insurance company for the payment of our medical bills after collecting a mediclaim membership fee, which is increasing every year. The insurance company has conveniently turned us into a “product” for their profit. They pay the bill after six months, deducting some amount, stating inadequate reasons. I have sent a petition to the Rajya Sabha secretariat for redressal of our grievances as I have not received any reply from the chairman of SAIL. The director of the Rajya Sabha secretariat has replied stating that “SAIL rules do not provide for reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to retired employees”. What is our remedy?

Nirendra Kumar Mitra,
Flat no 301, 61, Kankulia Road,
Ballygunj, Calcutta 700029

The company: No response from the company.

The expert: The matter complained of is a dispute between the employer and its ex-employees relating to service facilities in connection with the job so entrusted during the period when the employees were in service.

Post-retirement, the said employees are renewing their mediclaim policy with the United India Insurance Company, and as such, as per the terms of the insurance contract, if there is any deficiency found in the service rendered by the insurance company, they can certainly approach the consumer fora for their relief and redressal against the insurance company.

But the same cannot be done against SAIL, since the company rules do not provide for reimbursement of medical expenses with respect to the retired employees.

Sour taste

I took the franchisee of Baker’s World, manufacturers of confectionery and bakery items from M/s Associate Baker’s Confectionery Pvt Ltd. After one year, due to unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances, we were compelled to close the franchisee business on February 28, 2005. I requested the manager of the said company, on several occasions, to make necessary arrangements for the payment of Rs 25,000 — the balance for the said security deposit. But it is a matter of regret that the same has not been paid as yet for reasons unknown. What is my remedy?

Rajat Kumar Ray,
5/1/2M, Cornfield Road,
Calcutta 700019

The company: As per the agreement, three persons had taken the franchisee and not just Rajat Kumar Ray. To date, Rajat Kumar Ray, Archana Ray or Ranjini Chatterjee — three joint owners of the shop — have not jointly issued any letter to discontinue the franchisee. As per the agreement dated December 22, 2003 vide clause no.7, it is mandatory to issue a month’s notice to the other party. Unfortunately, in the present case the same has not been followed. Therefore, in the absence of the same, the franchisee cannot be cancelled.

We were told that Ray, who is not keeping well and has been hospitalised, will take some time to pay our outstanding amounts and will soon reopen the shop and as such, the glosign is still on display.

Thus the allegations made against us are not true and correct.

Moloy Mukherjee,
Associated Bakers Confectionery Pvt. Ltd

The expert: From the claim and the counterclaim of the parties, it appears that the disputes relate to accounting in connection with commercial activity, which is outside the scope of Consumer Protection Act (COPRA).

However, this can be sorted out before the civil court and as such the complainant can approach a civil practitioner for his guidance and further course of action.