Month: June 2013

What Is Cancer? A Shocking Truth…

yazdiLeave a comment
What Is Cancer? A Shocking Truth…

What Is Cancer? Learn the truth that you probably never thought about. Cancer is natural. It is a natural response to an unnatural environment. So what is cancer? What the video and find out. And don’t forget to share with your loved ones.

For those who are skeptic about the comments made about dairy products, read:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/dairy-free-dairy-6-reason_b_558876.html

For those who want to know more about acidity and cancer, read:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120906074249.htm

Advertisement

Malpractices adopted by flight carriers

yazdiLeave a comment

CERC exposes malpractices adopted by flight carriers

Passengers burdened with wacky charges

Ahmedabad, 25th May, 2013

Flying high is going to cost more now, with all the leading airlines reducing their luggage capacity and adopting policy of charging extra for preferable seats. Consumer Education Research Centre(CERC), a member of Consumer International, is an active organization incessantly working for the cause of the consumers and addressing their grievances have approached Civil Aviation Minister about the severe malpractices adopted by airlines companies for burdening the passengers with their wacky charges without the approval of regulatory bodies.

Recently CERC with its various research modules has noticed that  general  public  is  being  exploited  by  various   Airlines  who  increase  airfare  as  per  their  whims  &  fancies  without  taking  approval  from  AERA.  Recently  Jet  Airways  and  other  Airlines  have  reduced  Luggage  capacity  from  20  kg  to  15  kg  without  taking  any  approval  from  Regulatory  Body  and  without  any  public  hearing. These  Airlines  have  also decided  to  impose an additional charge  Rs. 250  per  Kg  for  any extra weight thus escalating the saddle on the fliers. Some  other  Private  Airlines  have  introduced  charges  for  preferential  seats,  thereby negating all procedure  for  filing  petition  before AERA (Airports Economic Regulatory Authority) prior to imposing such charges. Airlines are also charging Rs. 100 per seat by the choice of the passengers. In other words Passengers are being exploited by various Airlines and the Regulatory Body should execute some stern action against these malpractices adopted by airlines. Passengers are shelling bulk amount for air travel and the airlines are now additionally imposing payment burden even in matter of seats and luggage.

The congestion charges collected from passengers is also illegal and Airlines are violating regulations by exploiting civilians to increase their profits by tumbling charges for various basic facilities provided to the passengers. With so much of air traffic clogging due to – non availability of  landing  track, the  aircraft unnecessarily keep  flying which consumes expensive fuel thus further adding to the financial burden of passengers. In its letter to the Civil aviation minister,  CERC opposes such decision of airlines of excising extra charges from passengers and has also requested concerned authorities to take appropriate action against them.                          

For further information please contact:
K.K. BajajCGM (Hon) – CERS – AHMEDABAD
Email : kabajaj2003@yahoo.com

Authorities to refund wrongfully held fees

yazdiLeave a comment

CERS compels school authorities to refund wrongfully held fees post withdrawal of admissions 

Ahmedabad, 15th June, 2013

In a recent order passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ahmedabad (Rural), city based Somlalit School was asked to refund the entire amount of Rs 50000/- charged as admission fees along with interest to harassed parent, Dharmesh Shah who had claimed the refund after withdrawing the admissions of both his sons on 10th May 2010 without them attending even a single session of the academic calendar in school. The forum has also ordered Somlalit School to pay Rs. 3000/- for mental agony faced and Rs. 1000/- towards the litigation charges involved.

Dharmesh Shah had paid admission fees for both his sons-Fenil Shah and Devras Shah at Somlalit School. But, before the academic session for 2010-11 began, Dharmesh decided to withdraw the admissions of both his children and therefore claimed refund from the school authorities. In fact, Dharmesh also followed up his request with a legal notice on 30th October 2010. When the school authorities refused to respond, Dharmesh approached CERS to intervene. CERS was quick to initiate action and filed a case on May, 2012 in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on behalf of the complainant.

Later on, the school authorities said that the refund was denied as it was non refundable and the same had been specified at the time of admissions. In response to this reply, CERS filed a rejoinder affidavit on 13th August 2012 clearly highlighting that the amount being non refundable was no where specified in all the fee receipts given by the school during the admission process and therefore the claim for refund was valid.

During the arguments, the school authorities also claimed that being an educational institute they were not bound by the regular consumer and service provider relationship. However, the consumer forum denied the claim citing the ruling of the National Commission and Supreme Court which clearly states that due to the fees charged the educational institute is bound to provide the service. Further CERS also highlighted that the withdrawal of admissions by Dharmesh Shah hadn’t adversely affected the school authorities as the seats were later on filled by other students and so there is no reason for them to refuse the refund claims.

After hearing both parties, the forum did not find any merit in the arguments made by the school authorities. Therefore the forum ruled an order in favor of the complainant asking the school to lawfully compensate the complainant at 9% rate of interest from 10th May 2010 along with charges for mental agony caused and litigation involved.

For further information please contact: Ms Pritee Shah (O) 079-27489945/46

FAQs on Parking in Co-operative Housing Societies

yazdi184 Comments

BARKING FOR PARKING:

J.B.PATEL – JEBY

MAHARASHTRA CHS & RTI UNION

24.05.2013

  1. FAQ ON PARKING:

    1) QUESTION: CAN A MEMBER HOLD PARKING SPACE / STILT IF HE HAS PURCHASED THE SAME?

    ANSWER: Builder has to provide a mandatory parking space to a certain number of flats dependant on the size of every flat as per the provisions of the Development Control Regulations. Parking space is not counted in F.S.I calculation and is the property of the society. Hence, by the same reason and also as IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 2182 OF 2007, Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd .Appellant Vs. Panchali Co-Operative Housing Society Limited., versus Panchali Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, the Builder is NOT entitled to sell you Parking Space outside the FSI consumed which was further confirmed IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2544 OF 2010, Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. Apellant Vs. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.

2) QUESTION: WHETHER THE ALLOTMENT OF PARKING SPACES / STILTS SHALL BE MADE BY THE COMMITTEE ON THE BASIS OF ‘ FIRST COME FIRST SERVEDOR UNSOLD AND AVAILABLE PARKING SPACE? 

ANSWER: Builder has no right to sell any car patking space. The reason is when a flat purchaser is purchasing a flat, he is paying certain amount for the common areas and amenities appurtenant to the primises.

The common parking area / stilts is the property of the said society as per the said High Court order and also as per the various provisions of DCR & MOFA Act. But, be advised that this common parking area does not include the parking space that is reserved for each flat as per the provisions of DCR. Hence, this common parking space is the property of the society and the society can allot it on ‘First Come First Serve” basis or in any other manner in accordance to decisions of all the members, within the frame work of the Model Bye-Laws & MCS Act, 1960.

3) QUESTION: WHO OWNS THE CHS PARKING SPACE?

ANSWER:

a) The CHS “Solely” owns the common spaces (Stilt, Open or whatever)

b) The members DO NOT own the common spaces (Stilt, Open or whatever)

c) Allotment of Parking space is a “Administrative function” and the MC as well as General Body are empowered to allot the parking space to its own Registered members

d) Registered members include family members and associate members

e) Tenant’s are Nominal Members and have no rights of a regular member, which includes having no rights of parking of parking in the CHS premises. However, at the discretion of the MC, parking can be an extended as humanitarian facility to the nominal members.

f) Parking area (Stilt, Open or whatever) is not covered under Floor Space Index (FSI) and hence is not saleable, as upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Nahalchand vs. Panchali CHS.

g) The bye-law provision pertaining to Parking “RIGHTS” is a gross violation of the
various BMC & Fire act rules and has got no force of law, in Court of Law.

4) QUESTION: CAN THE MC REFUSE TO ALLOT PARKING SPACES TO ITS MEMBERS ?

ANSWER:

a) Parking space limitation (numbers) is decided by the Lay-Out-Plan (LOP) as sanctioned by the civic body (like BMC)

b) and under the Development Control rules (DC rules)

c) and under the Fire Act rules

d) The MC is bound not to violate the LOP & DC Rules & Fire Act rules, regarding the way common spaces are to be maintained.

5) QUESTION: WHAT IS THE TYPICAL PARKING CHARGES LEVIED BY CHS?

ANSWER:

a) Parking charges may be determined amongst the GB members, directing the MC to implement the GB directions.

b) Parking “charges”are not equivalent to Parking “penalty” for violations of Parking spaces & usages.

c) Parking charges may be from 10/- to 10,000/- or anything per vehicle, per month, BUT as decided by the GB, BUT this is again applicable “ONLY” to Registered members including his family members and associate members.

d) Nominal member is not a registered member. Hence parking charges do not apply to him. Hence Parking space can be denied to Nominal members, even if parking space is allotted to registered members including his family members and associate members, since Parking space is not a right granted to the registered members.

6) QUESTION: WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTANANCE OF PARKING SPACES?

ANSWER:
a) The MC is responsible for the upkeep & safety of the Parking spaces and for the safety of the members Parked vehicles rwsonable precautions may be taken by MC.

c) The member who parks his vehicle with the permission of the MC and pays Parking charges, can file Civil Cases, Criminal Cases and Consumer Court cases, against the CHS, for any “Negligence & Deficiency” in parking facility, vehicle damages etc….

d) The MC is liable to provide Common area lights, Security services to the CHS common areas, Sweeper charges to the parking area, path-way repair & maintenance etc…

7) QUESTION: CAN PARKING DEPOSIT BE COLLECTED?

ANSWER:

a) Parking space is a Common area and Deposit for Parking space cannot be collected, even if passed by the GB.

b) MCS RULE 39 restricts rights of society to raise funds.

c) Deposit means refundable, interest free, or whatever.

8) QUESTION: HOW TO ALLOT PARKING SPACES?

ANSWER:

a) Depending on the number of lawful Parking spaces (under BMC rules) and number of member vehicles, Parking space may be tentatively allotted on yearly Rotation usage system, which depends on cyclic First Apply First Allotment system.

b) More than one parking space may not be allotted to a member IF other members

parking requirements are not fulfilled.

  • 9) QUESTION: WHAT ABOUT PENALTY ON PARKING OFFENSES? (Open, Stilt or whatever):

    ANSWER:

    a) Penalty in a CHS is a “Fine” for violations of the CHS rules & conditions and Resolutions passed in the GB directing the MC to implement the GB directions applicable to them.

    b) Penalty amount may be fixed and decided by the GB and but levied to a member only after after giving opportunity to the member.

    c) However, by virtue of elections and the MCS Bye-Law no 136 of the old Bye-Laws and MCS Bye-Law no 138 of the new Model Bye Laws read as under “The members of the Committee shall be jointly and severally liable for making good any loss which the society may suffer on account of their negligence or omission to perform any of the duties and functions cast on them under the Act, Rules and Bye-laws of the Society.”

    d) In case of dispute of Penalty amount levied by the MC, the member may approach the local Ward Deputy Registrar / Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Housing Societies, for redressal of his grievances.

    As per New Model Bye Laws (as amended in 2009) Bye Law No.166: The general body meeting, after considering the say of the member and after giving him hearing, may levy penalty at the rate fixed by the meeting of the general body of the society but not more than Rs.1000.

    MOFA, is very clear on a part of parking space, stilt and open to sky. Builders do not have any right to sell these spaces, as per lot of judgments. In spite of Supreme Court judgment, some of the builders are known to sell such spaces for lakhs of rupee. If anybody wants to fight, our litigation system is so lengthy, and expansive. As per D.C. Rule builders have to keep 10% (increased to 25% in some areas) parking space in every building project, reserved for the visitors.


1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 2182 OF 2007 Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd .Appellant Vs. Panchali Co-Operative Housing Society Limited. ..Respondent

2) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2544 OF 2010 Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. Apellant Vs. Panchali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Respondent

Note: The said High Court Order of Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd versus Panchali Co-Operative Housing Society Limited was challenged in the Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble Supreme Court also upheld the Judgment of the Bombay High Court i.e. “Builder cannot sell parking slots in the stilt area as independent flats or garage”

IF THE BUILDER HAS ALREADY SOLD PARKING SPACE:

Under Section 78 of MOF Act, The allotment of parking space/ stilts shall be made by the Managing Committee on the basis of ‘first come first served’ for unsold and available parking spaces. In a judgment by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission authenticated the Cooperative Housing Societies that they can redistribute parking spaces sold and allotted by the Developer after adopting a suitable bye-law. The Commission ruled that the allotment of parking space is a matter that has be decided by the Housing Society. The Commission’s verdict was delivered on February 21, 2012 while deciding a complaint filed by Thane-based elderly couple. The complainants who had purchased a flat in one of the Housing Societies in Thane, had approached the Commission in May last year after they were physically restrained by employees of the Developer from parking their vehicle in a stilt parking space sold to another flat purchaser in the same Society. The complainants alleged that they were thereafter compelled to park their vehicle outside the Society compound.

The Commission ruled that Managing Committee of the Cooperative Housing Society can now decide fresh parking arrangements by cancelling the allotment of parking spaces made by their Builder by adopting a suitable bye-law. The complainants sought compensation from the Developer for selling parking spaces in breach of provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963. The Developer contended that he had never agreed to sell or allot any parking space to the complainants. The Commission discarded the Developer’s contention, reiterating the settled legal position that the Developer cannot sell or allot any parking space, which forms part of the common amenities of the Housing Society.

IMG-20151006-WA0014

Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) bill stalled again!

yazdiLeave a comment

We stopped the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) bill again!

Two months ago thousands of emails from us asked Minister of Science and Technology, Jaipal Reddy to stop the bill. Before that we registered our opposition to genetically modified (GM) food by saying ‘No’ to it in an online poll. Now the bill is being reviewed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests. [1]

The BRAI bill is a ploy to silence the opposition to GM crops and food in our country. [2] If cleared, the bill will create an autocratic body that will allow GM crops in our country without checking for safety. It will decide the future of our food and agriculture without even consulting us.

So far we’ve not allowed the BRAI bill to succeed.[3] There is however a strong group of multinational seed corporations, like Monsanto, and politicians who will benefit from this bill and want it to get through. They will use their influence to get this bill cleared in the next Parliament session.

We’ve defeated them for three years and we’ll keep doing that till our food is safe from genetic modification. The fight is still on. Let’s do what we’ve done in the past and save our food from harmful GM technology.

Thanks!

Neha Saigal

Greenpeace India

Public sector insurer settles claim of Rs 80 lakh

yazdiLeave a comment

CERS compels public sector insurer to settle claim of Rs 80 lakh previously rejected on invalid grounds

Ahmedabad, June 06 th , 2013

A tactical move by a government-owned general insurer to reject a valid claim of an amount as high as Rs. 80 lakh by making convenient interpretation of the terms & conditions of the insurance policy was blocked by intervention of nationally renowned consumer organization Consumer Education & Research Society (CERS), which filed a case on behalf of a city-based firm in Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat  and got an order in favor of the complainant for the settlement of the claim. The State Commission ordered New India Assurance to pay Rs.80 lakh within 30 days with interest at the rate of 9% and also asked to pay additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards the litigation cost and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony faced by the complainant.

As per the case details, Doshion Ltd. providing solutions for water management, received a contract for installation of a desalination plant on turn-key basis from Kerala Minerals Metal Ltd in 2005. As prescribed in the bid document, the company got a standard fire & special perils policy covering risk of Rs. 29.25 crore including cover of Rs. 5 crore for construction materials and other stocks before commencing the work in 2006 from New India Assurance Company Ltd by paying a premium of Rs. 8.08 lakh.

Thereafter, during the progress of the work, the construction site was flooded by the sea water due to breach in a nearby earthen embankment and whole machineries and material mobilized for the work were destroyed. The development was immediately reported to the insurance company. As per the evaluation, the damage was to the tune of about Rs. 80 lakh and Doshion Ltd put up a claim of Rs. 86.93 lakh before the insurer. However, the claim was rejected saying that the site, where the damage was done, was different one from the place cited in the insurance policy.

As the move was illegal, Doshion Ltd approached CERS to intervene. After verifying all the details, CERS filed a complaint in the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad. On behalf  on CERS, Mr. Apurva Dave appeared in the Commission. After hearing both parties through their counsels, the Commission rejected the argument made by New India Assurance company and passed an order in favor of the complainant asking the insurer to suitably compensate.

For further details please contact: Mr Apurva Dave, +91 98255 55854  

Mumbai Roadlogger

yazdiLeave a comment

Mumbai is the financial capital of India and one of the the worlds largest and fastest growing cities. Yet its roads are in no better condition than the surface of the moon. This application aims to enable Mumbaikars to mail bad road conditions to the relevant authorities and make them aware of the issue. Municipal ward mail ids have been provided as ‘To'(primary) recipient while state & central representative mail IDs have been provided as ‘CC’ (secondary) recipients in case an escalation is required. There is also a facility to post the road conditions to Facebook so you can update friends and family.

Click Here to get this Android app