We are here with you hands in hands to facilitate your learning & don't appreciate the idea of copying or replicating solutions. Read More>>
+ Link For Assignments, GDBs & Online Quizzes Solution
+ Link For Past Papers, Solved MCQs, Short Notes & More
Dear Students! Share your Assignments / GDBs / Quizzes files as you receive in your LMS, So it can be discussed/solved timely. Add Discussion
How to Add New Discussion in Study Group ? Step By Step Guide Click Here.
BNK603 Consumer Banking Assignment No 01 Solution & Discussion Fall 2015
SEMESTER FALL 2015 CONSUMER BANKING (BNK603) ASSIGNMENT NO. 01
DUE DATE: 1ST DECEMBER, 2015
After going through this activity, the students would be able to apply the analytical skills.
Case # 01:
On March 18, 2015, Komal purchased a pair of bangles and a single bangle from a jeweler in Lahore. They were declared to be of 22 carat gold purity and accordingly she was charged for gold of 22 carat purity plus an additional amount as making charges. After the purchase, the bangles were kept in her locker. On Eid-ul-fitar and at the marriage of a relative, her daughter used the bangles. By coincidence, the complainant came across the X-ray gold testing facility of Royal Jewelers who were offering to check the purity of gold through an X-ray test which was non-destructive. Out of sheer curiosity, she had the bangles tested and to her utter disbelief, found out that they were of less than 17 carat purity and not 22 carat, as had been represented at the time of the sale. Shaken by this discovery, she immediately visited the jeweler from whom she had bought the bangles along with the cash memo. He refused to accept her claim and her efforts to reason with him were in vain. So she came to the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) who, with the help of its Legal Cell, drafted a complaint for her to file in the Consumer Court. A notice was sent to the jeweler giving him a last chance to settle the matter before the Consumer Court was moved.
Case # 02:
Mrs. Aniqa drew two cheques for Rs. 50,000 each on his Bank Savings A/c on January 20, 2015. The money was to be transferred to a Fixed Deposit A/c but, after some time, she found that a Fixed Deposit had not been made. On contacting the bank, she was shocked to learn that the amount had instead been transferred to Bank’s Prudential Life Insurance policy without his consent or any intimation. Several complaints only yielded false assurances and so she approached the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) on 13th November, 2015.
Case # 03
Mr. Waleed deposited a high value cheque of Rs. 3,50,280.00 in his ABC Savings Bank A/c on October 8, 2014.He was surprised to find that it had not been cleared on October 10. The Bank said that it had been sent for clearing on October 9 but a technical problem in the centralized clearing section had delayed all credits. They promised that it would nonetheless be value dated effective October10 but when it was finally cleared on October 15, this was not done, depriving him of his interest for October. After persistent follow-up to no avail, on December 5, 2009, Mr. Waleed approached the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) which took up his case.
Case # 04
According to the Complaint are that the Petitioner got installed a Telephone Connection No.5812719 at his premises situated at House No. E/31/9-F/1 Al-Noor Town Walton Road Lahore on 31.05.2000. It is alleged that since the installation of Telephone Connection the same remained out of order, most of the time and several complaints telephonically as well as written were lodged with the Respondents. He has further contended that the Petitioner is paying regular monthly Telephone Bills but the Telephone is out of order for the last about 14 months. The Petitioner also filed an Application in December 2007 with Respondent No.1 for revival of Telephone Connection and asked him to refund the previous amount. The Petitioner issued a Legal Notice dated 16.02.2008 to the Respondents. The Respondent did not reply to the Legal Notice. In which the Petitioner has prayed that he be granted damages, Line Rent of 14 months, costs amounting to Rs. 129760/-
Case # 05
According to the Petition are that Complainant purchased a Mobile Set on 28.01.2010 of L.G Company for an amount of Rs.2350/- .It is alleged that Mobile Set has five functions, but none of the function is working. The Complainant approached the Respondent to replace the Mobile Set but he misbehaved and refused to replace the same. There after the Complainant issued a Legal Notice to the Respondent under Section 28 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005 which was not responded to. The Complainant has claimed Rs.100000/-as damages. Litigation Fee, price of the Mobile Set and other expenses amounting to Rs.37350/-.
Briefly describe which of the right(s) of consumers have been violated in below given cases. Also suggest whether the customer was justified in his position to protect his (her) rights from consumer protection department of government. Support your answer with logical arguments.
.+ http://bit.ly/vucodes (Link for Assignments, GDBs & Online Quizzes Solution)
+ http://bit.ly/papersvu (Link for Past Papers, Solved MCQs, Short Notes & More)+ Click Here to Search (Looking For something at vustudents.ning.com?) + Click Here To Join (Our facebook study Group)
Please Discuss here about this assignment.Thanks
Our main purpose here discussion not just Solution
We are here with you hands in hands to facilitate your learning and do not appreciate the idea of copying or replicating solutions.
share any idea about this assignment
Dear Students Don’t wait for solution post your problems here and discuss ... after discussion a perfect solution will come in a result. So, Start it now, replies here give your comments according to your knowledge and understandings....
Kindly guide how the solution should be?
Dear friends abhi yhn dekhi mn ne assignment www.muftaa.com