Communicating to Public on Their Complaints - Suggestion

Date: 05-10-2014

To,

Dr. Jitendra Singh,

Hon’ble MoS [PP]

Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pensions,

Govt of India, New Delhi

secy-arpg@nic.in

Respected Sir,

Communicating to Public on Their Complaints - Suggestion

            In large number of cases, govt officers do not communicate progress in handling of complaints of public. Majority time complaints are not even acknowledged. Under these circumstances, citizens are required to file repeated RTI applications and appeals to get details of handling of complaint and present status. This entails cost, delay and results in emotions of bad governance, in addition to avoidable work load in govt office.

            Since our new BJP Govt is very citizen centric and open to suggestions from end-users of govt services, I humbly suggest that:

1. All govt offices must acknowledge complaints with name, designation, department, email ID and official mobile number of officers handling complaint.

2. Copies of all communications on complaint should be endorsed to complainant, so that he is kept informed of progress and can also submit additional information or his say based on correspondence emanating from various departments.

            I earnestly hope that this suggestion will be considered positively.

Yours faithfully,

Jurisdiction for filing Consumer Complaints

Date: 08-06-2014                                                                             By email

To,

Shri Keshav Desiraju, IAS

Secretary, Dept of Consumer Affairs

Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution,

Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi 110001

secyca@fca.delhi.nic.in

Dear Sir,

Subject: Amendment to Consumer Protection Act—Jurisdiction of Forums

I understand that Govt intends to amend above law to make it more consumer-centric. I humbly submit my suggestion for your kind consideration: 

As per extant provisions of section 11 (2) of The Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaint can be filed in District Forum in whose jurisdiction             1. Opposite party resides or does business 2. Cause of action has arisen    3. Where opposite party has a branch office.

Sir, in present day due to service and business conditions, consumers are required to settle down at different places. For example an officer of central govt., bank may have purchased a TV say at Dehradun of a manufacturer who has office at Mumbai.  In case he is posted or has settled down in Gujarat, he has to move district forum of Dehradun or Mumbai. Similarly in case of branch office, there are decisions where branch office means branch where dealing or part of it has taken place [and not any branch whether connected to transaction in dispute or not].

Under above circumstances, it is not possible for an aggrieved  consumer to afford to file consumer complaint at a far off place, which is convenient to goods/service providers. I suggest that place of residence of consumer at the time of filing complaint should also be included to decide jurisdiction. Goods/service providers are financially stronger than the single consumer and can afford to defend at far off places. In absence of such a provision, most of aggrieved consumers just avoid filing of complaints being not financially viable and suffer in silence and helplessness.

I understand that some of pro-women laws provide that woman can file her case against husband at the place where she is residing at the time of filing of case, irrespective of where her husband resides or cause of action has arisen. A similar pro-consumer amendment should be made to above Act.

I am sure with new pro-citizen govt in place at the Centre and announcements made by Hon’ble Prime Minister, my suggestion would be positively considered. I had represented on 16-03-2010 but nothing materialized.

Yours faithfully, 

PASSPORT POLICE VERIFICATION

Date: 25-06-2014                                                     SUGGESTION

To,

Hon’ble Sushmaji Swaraj

External Affairs Minister,

Govt of India, New Delhi

eam@mea.gov.in

Hon’ble Madam,

POLICE VERIFICATION FOR PASSPORT

I am one of your admirers for the way complex matters are analyzed in Parliament and in your various speeches, including sincerity of purpose and simplicity.

I happened to listen to part of your speech on passport seva divas on TV yesterday.

I humbly suggest that police verification for passport should be restricted to say every 10th or 25th application in each passport office. Exception should be only in cases of applications in which passport officer, for reasons to be recorded, thinks that police verification is necessary.

Favourable police reports have been obtained in past by many anti-national elements through influence and money. It is only common citizen that faces the police ordeal and is compelled to bribe or face adverse report. There is inordinate delay in police verification. Majority of common Indians are not criminals and they are being punished for misdeeds of few. This problem can be reduced if above suggestion is implemented.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully

Issue of Duplicate Shares by Companies

Date: 21-09-2014                                                     SUGGESTION

To,

Hon’ble Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman

MoS for Company Affairs

Ministry of Company Affairs,

Govt of India, New Delhi

secy.mca@nic.in

Respected Madam,

Subject: Issue of Duplicate Shares by Companies

I thank BJP Govt for taking steps to make life of common Indians easy while dealing with Govt offices and simplifying procedures and processes.

At present while obtaining duplicate shares in lieu of original share certificates [in paper form] which are either lost or misplaced or destroyed or stolen etc the share holder has to comply with publication of public notice, filing FIR or complaint with police, execute indemnity bond and affidavit and offering surety etc.

I suggest that in case value of shares as on date of application for issue of duplicate shares is less than Rs.50000/-, the condition of publication of notice [which is not cost effective] and filing of FIR/Complaint with police be waived. Companies in such cases should issue duplicate shares or credit to demat account on the basis of indemnity bond and affidavit with one surety who is worth market value of shares.

This will expedite procedure and share holder will not be required to visit police station or expend on publication of notice. This will save him cost and predicament [and hidden charges] of getting FIR/complaint filed in police station.

I am sure my suggestion will be positively considered by your Ministry.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

TRANSFER OF VEHICLES ON SALE

Date: 16-09-2014                                                                                     email

To,

Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,

Govt of India, New Delhi

rtsbill2014-morth@nic.in

Dear Sirs,

Suggestion for The Road Transport and Safety Bill

I thank Govt of India for inviting suggestion from public on above bill. I am not expert on this subject, but I am end-user of vehicle. My humble suggestions are:

1. The fine and penalties suggested in draft bill will only encourage corruption and litigation which in turn will congest courts/tribunals. Fines and penalties need to be reduced, at least till corruption is moderated in governance.

2. At present when a vehicle is sold by owner, he submits RTO forms to buyer with original RC book and Insurance policy etc. I have experienced that many a time the buyer does not get vehicle transferred in his name in RTO and hence seller continues with liability of vehicle with him in case of misuse or accident etc. The buyer does not care for reminders from seller and uses vehicle at the risk of seller. This needs to be addressed in draft bill, so that vehicle gets transferred in the name of buyer on seller submitting prescribed papers to proposed authority.

Thanking you,