The Law of Registration

THE LAW OF REGISTRATION
(As under Transfer of Property Act-1882 & Registration Act-1908)

SUBHAN BANDEADVOCATE
KADAPA
subhanbande@gmail.com

 

Registration Fee vs. Stamp Duty

  • ‘Registration fee’ is charged by the Government to keep a document in public records.
    • ‘Stamp duty’ is levied by the Government to raise revenue and to recognise a right.
    • The ‘Law of Registration’ in India is explained under…..
      • The Transfer of Property Act-1882
      •  The Registration Act-1908

To read the full details – Click Here

Advertisements

Do NOT sign Registered AD letter Acknowledgements

Perhaps one more idea to be Vigilant ?..

Shared By Adv. Vinod Sampat
Note under certificate of posting is now stopped.

REGISTERED LETTERS…
DO NOT SIGN THEM UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT IS INSIDE…
PLEASE SHARE THIS WITH YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS
WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS – NEW MODUS OPERANDI
IMPORTANT INFORMATION, MUST READ
REGISTERED LETTERS.. DO NOT SIGN…
From ‘Lawyers Talk: 8618’
Without Prejudice.
Dear all,
Something to ponder about when receiving registered letter.
How often do we take the trouble of opening the letter before signing the Registered AD (Acknowledgement Due) Letter acknowledgement slip?
Read to find out more…. in future be cautious.

Open letters BEFORE signing to acknowledge receipt of the Registered AD (Acknowledgement Due) Letter..!!!
Folks, the next time the postman or courier guy comes to deliver a Registered AD (Acknowledgement Due) Letter, a Certificate Of Posting Letter or Parcel, do the following:
a) Check who is it from..??
b) If you do not know the source, reject it.
If you accept it without knowing the source, the following has happened and can happen to you too…
There have been cases where lawyers have done the following:
a) Mailed empty / sealed Registered AD (Acknowledgement Due) Letter to people on behalf of their clients for some court case matter.
b) The Registered AD (Acknowledgement Due) Letter either, consisted of brochures promoting sale of new real estate or some car model or just an empty A4 size paper inside. In normal circumstances, when one receives an empty letter or junk mail, they will just tear it up and throw it away, BUT BUT, here lies the danger:
a) You signed the Registered AD (Acknowledgement Due) Letter acknowledgement card and it is returned to the law firm. That signed Registered AD (Acknowledgement Due) Letter
acknowledgement card is proof that a letter was delivered and confirms the delivery and can/will be used against you in court.
b) Same applies to the so very convenient “CERTIFICATE OF POSTING” mail.  When the grace period for you to respond is over,  they quietly go to court and show proof that a Registered AD  (Acknowledgement Due) Letter was sent to you as a reminder and you did not bother to defend it and thus convince the court officials and get a judgement against you.
Next another Registered AD (Acknowledgement Due) Letter is sent to you asking for damages approved by the court, or just another empty envelope and you discard it once more and this  time the white collar crook will go to the court quietly and seek the assistance of the court to seal/attach your property to recover the amount awarded by the court and soon the court bailiff will be at your door step to execute the order.
What happens next..?
You frantically call your relatives in disbelief and seek legal advise.
You are lost not knowing what’s happening.
Anxiety, stress, palpitation, sleepless nights cannot be compensated as this is a reality check. You engage a lawyer’s firm, spend a many thousand rupees for paper work and an appeal to the Higher court
to set aside this matter… and also spend several days in court trying to prove your innocence.
What are your rights.??
a) You have every right to reject any mail / parcel that comes from unknown sources, be it a debt collection company, law firm or some individual.
b) You have every right to ask the postman or the person delivering it to open the mail and let you see what is inside and the contents of the letter.
c) REJECT IT if you are not comfortable… or ask them to deliver to a law firm that you know.
d) If you have inadvertently signed and collected the empty Registered AD (Acknowledgement Due) Letter/mail, lodge a police report and also report to the bar council… as this will help in your case to protect you… if the matter goes to court.
Eye opener isn’t it, crime is no longer just house break-ins and snatch thefts where most of the thieves get a few hundred rupees… BUT these days, the crooks come dressed in suits, so be aware and be smart… or you will end up spending thousands of rupees, many hours spent travelling to court or to your
lawyers office, not forgetting the stress, anxiety, sleepless nights, etc. Do inform ALL your family members staff….
NOT TO SIGN ON BEHALF OF ANYONE…
let the postman leave a card,
go check at the post office,
ask the postman to open and
show you what is inside the envelope…
or lastly…
if you are not comfortable, just reject it…
BUT DON’T SIGN WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT IS INSIDE…!!

Hyundai – no refunds?

I m Vijay Goyal,my cell no.9820190536 and my add.204 Indo Saigon Ind. Estate,A.K.Road,Marol Naka,Andheri (east) Mumbai 400059,Mail add. v.goyal@akshaet.com

I booked a Hundai Creta Car with Global Gallarie wheels Pvt.Ltd.Everest Complex,A.K.Road,Andheri (e),byBooking Docket no C2016071375 on 27/07/2016

Now Global Gallarie is no more their Agent and one of other showroom at Thane is also closed and when there was no response for my Correspondence and Phone Calls,

Made Complaint to MIDC Police Station,On Line Consumer Forum by Complaint No.404665 on Aug.2017 and many other Places but no result,

At Last to Hundai Moter India Ltd.,Irrugattukottai,NH4,Sriprumbudur,Taluka Kanchipuram,Dist. Chennai,Tamilnadu 602117 and reported to Consumer Forum by 404665 no.

But for no result,

Please Advise,

With Warm Regards,

Vijay Goyal.

Railways ordered to pay for non-working AC in coach

By the time the train reached Jhansi, the air conditioning completely broke down, making the compartment stuffy. Passengers, including Sharma, started feeling suffocated. Some felt so ill that they started vomiting, but no medical aid was provided. The washroom also ran of out water and the condition of the AC-III tier boogie became worse than a general compartment. A written complaint was then lodged with the train conductor who gave an acknowledged of having received the complaint.

At every station where the train halted, passengers requested the travelling ticket examiner (TTE), coach attendant and other railway staff to rectify the problem. Yet, nothing was done. But an assurance was given that something would be done at Delhi. But again nothing was done and even an alternative coach was not arranged for.

Sharma subsequently filed a complaint before the Jalandhar District Forum alleging about the negligence and deficiency in service.

The Railways contested the case, denying all the allegations and asserted that the AC was functioning properly. They denied that Sharma had lodged a complaint and accused him of filing a false complaint just to extort money. The Railways sought a dismissal of the complaint since there was neither any deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice.

Sharma filed his own affidavit and relied on the prescriptions to prove that his wife and minor child had to be hospitalized for nausea and vomiting. He also relied on the written complaint which he had lodged and was acknowledged by the train conductor to substantiate his case and show how the Railway’s denial was false. The Forum concluded that the Railways were suppressing the truth and awarded Sharma a lump sum of Rs.15,000 as compensation.

The Railways challenged this order before the Punjab state commission, which dismissed its appeal. The Railways then approached the National Commission. The delay of over 170 days in filing the revision was attributed to procedural delays of sending thefile from one office to another for approval.

The National Commission observed that the explanation for thedelayshowedlackof seriousness and a casual and lackadaisical attitude on the part of the Railways. It relied on the Supreme Court judgement of the Post Master General & Ors v/s Living Media India Limited& Anr. where such an attitude had been deprecated. Accordingly, by itsorder of January 3, 2018, the Bench of Rekha Gupta refusedto accept thedelay and dismissedthe revision petition of the railways. The order for payment of compensation to Sharma was thus confirmed.

Conclusion: Non-working AC is bad enough, but to go to an extent of lying and accusing the consumer is totally unconscionable, especially when the service provider is the government.

(The author is a consumer activist and has won the Govt.of India’s National Youth Award for Consumer Protection. His email is jehangir.gai.columnist@outlook.in)

Maharashtra IT Secretary asks Bank of India to pay Rs3.50 lakh to online fraud victim

In a significant order that will bring relief to all those who are victims of online frauds, the Secretary of Information Technology (IT) in Maharashtra has asked Bank of India to pay Rs3.50 lakh to a victim of online fraud. As per the IT Act, 2000 and a notification issued on 25 March 2003, IT Secretaries of every State and Union Territory in India act as ‘Adjudicating Officer’ in their respective State or Union Territory.
In a recent order, VK Gautam, IT Secretary, who is also Adjudicating Officer under the IT Act in Maharashtra, held that Bank of India owns, controls and operates sensitive personal data of its customers but failed to implement reasonable security practices and procedures leading to loss to complainant Nirmalkumar Athawale from Kamptee, near Nagpur. Holding Bank of India liable for violation of Section 43A of the IT Act, the IT Secretary asked it to pay Rs2.50 lakh towards wrong transactions and Rs1 lakh as legal charges and compensation for causing mental harassment.
The case is from 2015, when Mr Athawale found that Rs3 lakh were withdrawn from his joint account at Bank of India’s Vaishali Nagar, Kamptee branch. He lodged a complaint against this unauthorised withdrawal with the Bank branch and also with the Police.
Through its internal mechanism, the Bank was able to recover only Rs50,000 out of the Rs3 lakh withdrawn from Mr Athawale’s account. Under guidance from Adv Mahendra Limaye, a Cyber Legal Consultant from Nagpur, Mr Athawale filed a civil suit before the IT Secretary.
After hearing both the sides Mr Gautam, the IT Secretary held that the Bank has not only erred but also committed serious security breach by providing single customer identification code (CID) for two accounts with different constitutions besides providing net banking facility without any request from the customer. The Bank also failed to send messages for withdrawal of Rs3 lakh to Mr Athawale.
“(The) Bank has caused serious compromise with reasonable security practises,” the IT Secretary said while holding Bank of India guilty under sections 43A, G, and H of IT Act. He asked the Bank to pay Rs2.50 lakh towards wrong transactions charged on Mr Athawale’s account and Rs1 lakh towards legal charges and for causing mental harassment.
As per IT Act, the Adjudicating Officer (IT Secretary) has sole jurisdiction for adjudicating on any contravention of IT Act 2000/8 and to award compensation to those who have suffered a loss of less than Rs5 crore. The Adjudicating Officer has power of a Civil Court in resolving cybercrime cases.

Insurer must reimburse diabetes patient cost of glucometer test strips under mediclaim

Diabetics, especially those who are insulin dependent, have to monitor their blood sugar before every shot of insulin, to determine its correct dosage.This requires a glucometer and test strips, which are quite costly. Can the insured recover the cost under a mediclaim policy?
Case Study: Purvi Kamlesh Shah and her daughter were covered under a mediclaim policy issued by New India Assurance. The policy was first taken in 2005 and then renewed without any break. However, while renewing the policy with continuity, a fresh proposal form had been obtain in 2008.

During the tenure of the renewed policy from March 13, 2010 to March 12, 2011, Purvi had to be hospitalized on July 13, 2010 due to fluctuating blood glucose levels. After she was discharged on July 16, 2010, she lodged two claims, one for the hospitalization expenses of Rs 55,409 and the other of Rs 7,680 towards medicines. The insurer’s TPA, MD India Healthcare Services settled the claims at Rs 47,931 and Rs 3,680 respectively. The deductions were in respect of expenses incurred on purchase of glucometer strips to check the sugar levels. The reason for disallowance was that these were considered as “nonmedical expenses“, and so were not payable under the policy .

Purvi protested against this disallowance, but New India’s Grievance Cell failed to respond to her representation. She filed a complaint before the South Mumbai Forum through the Consumers Welfare Association and sought a direction to reimburse these expenses along with interest and also claimed compensation and costs.

The TPA as well at the insurer contested the case and claimed that the amount had been correctly computed. They claimed that Purvi was not entitled to dispute the amount after having accepted the claim in full and final satisfaction.

The forum observed that the policy conditions had been changed, so a fresh proposal had been taken in 2008. So the new terms under the revised policy would be applicable, which provided for limiting the claim on the basis of the room category. The forum concluded that there was no deficiency in service and dismissed the complaint. Purvi challenged the order, but her appeal was dismissed by the Maharashtra State Commission. Purvi then questioned the orders in revision. The National Commission noted that various clauses of the policy providing for certain exclusions had been inserted in the Mediclaim Policy (2007). The Commission observed that it was beyond comprehension how any claim for medicines could vary with the room category opted for, as medicines treatment would be the same regardless of the room category .

The Commission pointed out that glucometer strips are essential for a diabetic to monitor blood glucose levels and adopt a medical regime to prevent the consequences of elevated or declined blood sugar levels. So it would be wrong to consider the expense on the test to be nonmedical expenses. The deduction of Rs 9,350 on this pretext was held to be wrong.

The National Commission’s bench comprising of justice D K Jain, along with M Shreesha, held the TPA and the insurance company jointly liable to pay the cost of the test strips amounting to Rs 9,350 with interest at 9% from the date of filing of the complaint. Six weeks time was given for compliance of the order. In addition, costs of Rs10,000 were awarded to Consumers Welfare Association for espousing the cause of the consumer.

(The author is a consumer activist and has won the Govt. of India’s National Youth Award for Consumer Protection. His email is jehangir.gai.columnist@outlook.in)

Jehangir B Gai

ePaper, The Times of India (Bombay), Oct 30 2017, Page 7 :

ASCI bans 114 ads, including Airtel, Amazon, Haier, Dove, Fair & Lovely, Complan, and Kelloggs in August 2017

The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) of the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has banned as many as 114 advertisements out of 193 complaints it received across segments during August 2017.
Out of 114 advertisements against which complaints were upheld, 51 belonged to the Healthcare category, 31 to the Education category, followed by 17 in the Food & Beverages category, five in the Personal Care category, and 10 advertisements from other categories, the self-regulatory industry body said in a statement.
ASCI said it processed complaints against advertisements from general public, industry as well as from the Department of Consumer Affairs’ Grievances Against Misleading Advertisements (GAMA) Portal. Out of 93 advertisements, complaints against 52 advertisements were upheld.
The self-regulatory industry body also picked up 100 advertisement through its suo moto surveillance of print and TV media via National Advertisement Monitoring Services (NAMS) project. Out of the 100 advertisements, total of 62 advertisements were considered to be misleading. Of these 32 advertisements were from Healthcare, 26 belonged to the Education category, two from Personal Care category and two from Food and Beverage category, ASCI said.
The banned ads are from prominent companies like Bharti Airtel Ltd, Amazon.com Inc (Parachute Advanced Coconut Hair Oil, Dabur India Ltd (Dabur Odomos), Haier Appliances India Pvt Ltd (Haier refrigerator), Dainik Bhaskar Group (Dainik Bhaskar Newspaper), Hindustan Unilever Ltd (Dove Hair fall Shampoo and Fair & Lovely anti-marks treatment), Heinz India Ltd (Complan), Kelloggs India Pvt Ltd (Kelloggs Special K), among others, they range from FMCGs to autos, personal accessories to alcohol, and education to media.
Click Here for the details and the full story