Attention: open in a new window. PrintE-mail

Whinepedia salutes passionate champions who pursue deficiency in product/ services and force erring businesses to remedy. One such champion is Subrata who has successfuly fought injustice with Yahoo India, Vodafone & ICICI Bank with several painstaking followups (detail given below). He understands the pain, effort, time, money (sometimes risk to life) that needs to be expended by individual to fight injustice and strongly endorses the benefits of collective action. He has been a big supporter of whinepedia platform that facilitates such collective action powered by capable and passionate champions and has volunteered to lead.

If you have any success stories or want to refer such champions, please use "write&fix menu" to contribute them for publishing in whinepedia. 

Whinepedia has a reward and motivational mechanism coupled with converting positive passion and negative energy (towards erring business) in innovative manner and underpinning them with geo anchors like pincodes across the country) to get the scale and build momentum. It is a win-win for all except those perperating injustice. 

As a group, we have many powerful options to resolve issues effectively even before reaching out to overloaded judiciary / consumer forums.

 =====Suceess Story - Details =====

From: Umesh [mailto: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ]
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 5:49 PM
To: Baliarsingh, Subrata
Subject: RE: Deficiency in Service by LAWWAVE-India

 Dear Mr. Subrata,

 We will send you the DD to the below said address on Monday(20.07.09).

 Regards,

 

From: Baliarsingh, Subrata Sent: 17 July 2009 17:40
To: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Cc: Subrata Baliarsingh
Subject: FW: Deficiency in Service by LAWWAVE-India
Importance: High

 Dear Umesh,

 Thanks for your help. Please send the DD in the following address:-

Regards

Subrata


From: Subrata Baliarsingh 
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 11:03 PM
To: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ; This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Cc: Baliarsingh, Subrata ; Baliarsingh, Subrata
Subject: Deficiency in Service by LAWWAVE-India

 

ated: 16th July-2009

Dear Sir, 

Apropos my discussion with Mr Umesh and others on  16th July’2009 at about 02.30 PM IST) arising out my registration for the course held in Bangalore  from  13th February.  I am writing this mail as advised during my conversation today.

The core of my contention is  that I paid Rs.5000/- vide  cash invoice No. 363 dated 04th February’2009  for the aforesaid program.  However, due to my health constraint concurrent with course schedule, I was not in a position to attend the class in February. Hence, I informed the same to Umesh to refund Rs.5000/-. Umesh informed me that I can attend the Class (apparently in the 2nd Batch) scheduled to be held in June’2009 in Bangalore by carrying forward the same registration amount if I am interested.  Accordingly, I opted for the course scheduled for June’2009.  

The program however could not be held in June-2009, nor  any intimation has been given till date as to the date of holding the program in Bangalore by ‘LAWWAVE’.

Finding no intimation from ‘LAWWAVE’, I send mails to  Umesh and even called  him on his cell 09941440444 repeatedly requesting him to furnish the exact program schedule. Unfortunately, I could not receive any response from Umesh nor from any official of Lawwave.. Surprisngly, I was informed by Umesh and other Lady Exeuctive that Umesh could not access his mail since last 02 months. I doubt- if this statement can stand any truth, if enquired to ascertain any veracity. I know this is a false and misleading statement to evade query from the Customer. On 15th July,2009, I wrote another mail to Umesh due to apparent unprofessional behaviour.

On 16th July,2009, I received call from Umesh & had conversation with him and  other Lady Executive (Guessed Divya/Viddhya by name)  related to (i) delay in holding the course in Bangalore, (ii) regarding refund of registration money of Rs.5000/-.

From the conversation, it could be construed that ‘LAWWAVE’ has no plan for holding the program in Bangalore in near future. Both the Executives of LAWWAVE were deliberately shirking their responsibility; or were blissfully unaware to divulge any credible information regarding definite date of holding the program in Bangalore or method to get Rs.5000/- refunded.  

Both the Executives of LAWWAVE repeatedly reposing an impression that by allowing me to postpone the program in February-2009 &  to attend the next course in Bangalore (Which was scheduled to be held in June-2009), they have extended  me  ‘FAVOUR’. Please reorient both your Executives not to infer such assumption, which has no place in any legal lexican.

 Further, I was advised today i.e., 16th July,  2009  to write to  CEO of LAWWAVE for any cogent reply. When I insisted to furnish the “Postal Address”,  she denied to give the same. She  reluctantly disclosed the email ID  viz ‘ This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it to write to CEO. When, I enquired the name of the CEO to address my application by ‘name’ of CEO (Example Dear Mr......), she told me to address to  ‘Training Coordinator’. Any reasonable man can  differentiate between the ‘CEO’  and ‘Training Coordinator’ of a Company. I don’t know, the reason of her misguiding me. More, importantly, she owed a statutory  responsibility to disclose all details as I asked for  arising out of  my  status  as ‘CUSTOMER/CONSUMER’ with ‘LAWWAVE’. Because, in letter send along with Money receipt, it has been categorically informed by Training Coordinator to 'contact Vidhya or Umesh for further clarification'.. Hence, by deliberately not divulging the details tantamount to not carrying her duties with due promptitude and diligence.

From my above experience, I feel an act of ‘breach of trust’, & ‘lack of service’ by LAWWAVE and failure on its part to render the ‘SERVICE’ mutually agreed upon. In my entire 14 years career in Prosecution and Business Law domains, I never came across any callous response from a business entity like LAWWAVE.

The entire episode is not in the intrest of Customer nor  LAWWAVE, if  resolution of such dispute is not made. 

 I request you to organize the training program within a reasonable time frame before August-2009; or else refund the registration money of Rs. 5000/- forthwith.

Regards

Subrata Kumar Baliarsingh