Show Comments ▼ by Taboolaby TaboolaSponsored LinksSponsored LinksPromoted LinksPromoted LinksYou May LikeTotal PastThe Ingenious Reason There Are No Mosquitoes At Disney WorldTotal PastSerendipity TimesInside Coco Chanel’s Eerily Abandoned Mansion Frozen In TimeSerendipity Timesmoneycougar.comThis Proves The Osmonds Weren’t So Innocentmoneycougar.comTaonga: The Island FarmThe Most Relaxing Farm Game of 2021. No InstallTaonga: The Island FarmAlphaCute30 Rules That All “Hells Angels” Have To FollowAlphaCuteBlood Pressure Solution4 Worst Blood Pressure MedsBlood Pressure Solutionthedelite.comNetflix Cancellations And Renewals: The Full List For 2021thedelite.comReporter CenterBrenda Lee: What Is She Doing Now At 76 Years of Age?Reporter CenterBlood Pressure For LifeWhy Doctors May No Longer Prescribe Blood Pressure MedsBlood Pressure For Life whatsapp Share KCS-content Monday 15 November 2010 7:51 pm whatsapp Tags: NULL Read This NextRicky Schroder Calls Foo Fighters’ Dave Grohl ‘Ignorant Punk’ forThe WrapCNN’s Brian Stelter Draws Criticism for Asking Jen Psaki: ‘What Does theThe WrapDid Donald Trump Wear His Pants Backwards? Kriss Kross Memes Have AlreadyThe WrapHarvey Weinstein to Be Extradited to California to Face Sexual AssaultThe WrapPink Floyd’s Roger Waters Denies Zuckerberg’s Request to Use Song in Ad:The Wrap’The View’: Meghan McCain Calls VP Kamala Harris a ‘Moron’ for BorderThe Wrap’Sex and the City’ Sequel Series at HBO Max Adds 4 More ReturningThe WrapNewsmax Rejected Matt Gaetz When Congressman ‘Reached Out’ for a JobThe Wrap2 HFPA Members Resign Citing a Culture of ‘Corruption and Verbal Abuse’The Wrap Bullish Vivendi beats forecasts EUROPE’S largest entertainment and telecommunications group, Vivendi, posted forecast-beating third-quarter results yesterday, fuelled by strong sales at its video game and Brazilian telecom units.But weaker results at its French telecom operator SFR, which is a key driver of Vivendi’s revenue and profit, showed how competition is intensifying in France, forcing SFR to spend more to recruit and retain clients and putting pressure on margins.The company also confirmed its 2010 objectives of an increase in earnings before interest, taxes and amortiSation (EBITA) and higher adjusted net income than in 2009, when it reached €2.59bn (£2.2bn).Vivendi, which competes with France Telecom in telecommunications and Electronic Arts in video games, said quarterly EBITA was €1.43bn, ahead of the €1.40bn average in a Reuters poll of 11 analysts.Third-quarter revenue was €6.89bn, compared with the average estimate of €6.70bn in the poll.Vivendi’s Brazilian telecom unit, GVT, which it acquired a year ago, raised its forecast for 2010, saying revenue would rise 40 per cent and adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation, or EBITDA, would rise 50 per cent. GVT is investing heavily in the coming years to expand its network in economically booming San Paolo and Rio de Janeiro.GVT had previously expected revenue to be up 34 per cent and EBITDA 44 per cent for the year. French telecom operator SFR, 56 per cent owned by Vivendi and the rest by Vodafone Group, posted higher revenue; but its operating profit came in lower than analysts had expected.
Monday 3 January 2011 11:13 pm Share KCS-content whatsapp Show Comments ▼ whatsapp Kraft in Indian tax evasion probe over its takeover of Cadbury More From Our Partners Police Capture Elusive Tiger Poacher After 20 Years of Pursuing the Huntergoodnewsnetwork.orgFans call out hypocrisy as Tebow returns to NFL while Kaepernick is still outthegrio.comNative American Tribe Gets Back Sacred Island Taken 160 Years Agogoodnewsnetwork.orgKansas coach fired for using N-word toward Black playerthegrio.comBrave 7-Year-old Boy Swims an Hour to Rescue His Dad and Little Sistergoodnewsnetwork.orgLA news reporter doesn’t seem to recognize actor Mark Currythegrio.comAstounding Fossil Discovery in California After Man Looks Closelygoodnewsnetwork.orgColin Kaepernick to publish book on abolishing the policethegrio.comRussell Wilson, AOC among many voicing support for Naomi Osakacbsnews.com FOOD giant Kraft could face tax evasion charges over its takeover of Cadbury India.The Indian Finance Ministry has ordered an eight-week probe into the takeover, which was part of Kraft’s $19.6bn acquisition of Cadbury in February last year.The US firm will be desperate to avoid a protracted legal battle like the one that has blighted Vodafone since its 2007 purchase of Hutchison Whampoa’s mobile business in the country.A public interest law suit has been filed by a New Delhi lawyer who claims Kraft “completely and illegally avoided” paying tax on the deal. Ved Prakash says Kraft has deprived the exchequer by failing to pay tax on the acquisition.Cadbury India is key to Kraft’s plans for the firm, with the subsidiary already the country’s largest confectioner in a rapidly expanding market. Kraft was not available for comment last night. It is not clear how big any potential claim would be but the lawyer involved said it could be sizeable.Vodafone is appealing a ruling that it owes $2bn in capital gains tax. Tags: NULL
whatsapp Sunday 27 March 2011 11:41 pm Show Comments ▼ KCS-content Read This NextRicky Schroder Calls Foo Fighters’ Dave Grohl ‘Ignorant Punk’ forThe WrapCNN’s Brian Stelter Draws Criticism for Asking Jen Psaki: ‘What Does theThe WrapDid Donald Trump Wear His Pants Backwards? Kriss Kross Memes Have AlreadyThe WrapPink Floyd’s Roger Waters Denies Zuckerberg’s Request to Use Song in Ad:The WrapHarvey Weinstein to Be Extradited to California to Face Sexual AssaultThe Wrap2 HFPA Members Resign Citing a Culture of ‘Corruption and Verbal Abuse’The Wrap’The View’: Meghan McCain Calls VP Kamala Harris a ‘Moron’ for BorderThe Wrap’Black Widow’ First Reactions: ‘This Is Like the MCU’s Bond Movie’The Wrap’Small Axe’: Behind the Music Everyone Grooved On in Steve McQueen’sThe Wrap PROSPECTS for economic recovery in 2011 will be clearer this week, when official data is released on the UK’s largest sector.The index of services fell 0.6 per cent in the final month of last year, yet is expected to rebound in 2011.January’s data is released on Wednesday, by the Office for National Statistics.Severe winter conditions were partly responsible for the knock to Demember’s figures, although services are failing to bounce back as strongly as many hoped.“We are seeing manufacturing grow very strongly, at some record rates, whereas services are struggling,” said Chris Williamson of Markit.Markit’s purchasing managers’ index hit an eight-month high of 54.5 for the services industry in January, as it sprung back from the December decline. However, growth (represented by all figures over 50 in the index) slipped to 52.6 in February, reflecting ongoing weakness in services.Growth in manufacturing, meanwhile, hit a 20-year high in January and continued to thrive into February, according to the PMIs.“Domestic consumer spending still accounts for 65 per cent of GDP, so weak domestic demand hits a lot of areas,” Williamson said. While much of the services industry can turn to expanding demand for exports, the rebalancing of the UK won’t be strong enough to push the whole sector forward, Williamson said.In December, hotels and restaurants saw output plummet by an annualised rate of 5.4 per cent. Business and finance, less affected by the weather and domestic demand, slipped just 0.8 per cent. Share by Taboolaby TaboolaSponsored LinksSponsored LinksPromoted LinksPromoted LinksYou May LikeMisterStoryWoman Files For Divorce After Seeing This Photo – Can You See Why?MisterStoryMoneyPailShe Was A Star, Now She Works In ScottsdaleMoneyPailTotal PastThe Ingenious Reason There Are No Mosquitoes At Disney WorldTotal PastSerendipity TimesInside Coco Chanel’s Eerily Abandoned Mansion Frozen In TimeSerendipity TimesBetterBe20 Stunning Female AthletesBetterBeAlphaCute30 Rules That All “Hells Angels” Have To FollowAlphaCuteDefinitionDesi Arnaz Kept This Hidden Throughout The Filming of ‘I Love Lucy’Definitionthedelite.comNetflix Cancellations And Renewals: The Full List For 2021thedelite.comTaonga: The Island FarmThe Most Relaxing Farm Game of 2021. No InstallTaonga: The Island Farm Services look for a rebound whatsapp Tags: NULL
Williamson Tea Kenya Limited (WTK.ke) listed on the Nairobi Securities Exchange under the Food sector has released it’s 2017 annual report.For more information about Williamson Tea Kenya Limited (WTK.ke) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Williamson Tea Kenya Limited (WTK.ke) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Williamson Tea Kenya Limited (WTK.ke) 2017 annual report.Company ProfileWilliamson Tea Kenya Limited cultivates, manufactures and sells tea in Kenya and exports to international markets. The company operates tea farms in Changoi, Kaimosi, Kapchorua and Tinderet. It is a fifth-generation tea farming business committed to growing high quality green tea leaf and produces a selection of loose-leaf tea and loose-leaf teabags. Well-known brands in its product range include Duchess Grey, Traditional Afternoon, Lifeboat Tea, Kenya Earth, Green Earl Grey, Purple Blush, Mint Garden, Earl Grey Purple, Purple Matcha and Green Matcha. Williamson Tea Kenya Plc also has interests in property investment and has a division which sells and services generators. Williamson Tea Kenya Plc is a subsidiary of Ngong Tea Holdings Limited. The head office is in Nairobi, Kenya. Williamson Tea Kenya Limited is listed on the Nairobi Securities Exchange
Dairibord Holdings Limited (DZL.zw) listed on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange under the Food sector has released it’s 2017 interim results for the half year.For more information about Dairibord Holdings Limited (DZL.zw) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Dairibord Holdings Limited (DZL.zw) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Dairibord Holdings Limited (DZL.zw) 2017 interim results for the half year.Company ProfileDairibord Zimbabwe Private Limited (DZL Holdings Limited) is the largest dairy company in Zimbabwe; producing and marketing a range of fresh milk and ready-to-drink and long-life milk products. The company also owns Lyons Zimbabwe; a food company that manufactures and markets ice-cream, cordials, condiments and spreads, tea and mineral water; ME Charhons which manufactures biscuits and baking products; and has a majority stake in Dairibord Malawi. The company is wholly-owned by Lavenson Investments Private Limited and is the flagship subsidiary of Dairiboard Holdings Limited. DZL Holdings Limited owns four property companies; Goldblum Investments (Private) Limited, Chatmoss Properties (Private) Limited, Quallinnex Properties (Private) Limited and Slimline Investments (Private) Limited. Its export markets include Zambia, Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique and South Africa. Dairibord Zimbabwe Private Limited is listed on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange
ENL Limited (ENL.mu) listed on the Stock Exchange of Mauritius under the Industrial holding sector has released it’s 2021 interim results for the third quarter.For more information about ENL Limited reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations visit the ENL Limited company page on AfricanFinancials.ENL Limited Interim Results for the Third Quarter DocumentCompany ProfileENL Limited is a diversified conglomerate engaged in sustainable value creation in the following sectors: real estate, hospitality, agro-industry, commerce, logistics and fintech. Operations are driven by its main subsidiaries, namely, Rogers, ENL Property and ENL Agri. The Company also holds sizeable stakes in Eclosia and New Mauritius Hotels ENL Limited is listed on the Stock Exchange of Mauritius.
Florida gas prices jump 12 cents; most expensive since 2014 Share on Facebook Tweet on Twitter Please enter your comment! UF/IFAS in Apopka will temporarily house District staff; saves almost $400,000 Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. TAGSFord F-150the conversation.com Previous articleSteady rise in suicides will only drop if social ills are tackledNext articleLet not this difficulty pass from me Denise Connell RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply Please enter your name here You have entered an incorrect email address! Please enter your email address here Gov. DeSantis says new moment-of-silence law in public schools protects religious freedom By M. Berk Talay, Associate Professor of Marketing, University of Massachusetts Lowell and first published on theconversation.com.In April, Ford announced that it will be phasing out nearly all of its passenger cars in the United States.If all goes according to plan, 90 percent of Ford’s portfolio in North America will be trucks, SUVs and commercial vehicles. Its F-150 – the most popular vehicle in America – is now poised to build on its stunning success.The model’s ascent is really part of a larger, decades-long trend of Americans’ eschewing sedans for trucks and SUVs.But why do Americans flock to the F-150 over the Tacoma or the Silverado?I study how innovation drives success in competitive markets, and Ford’s emphasis on original design – together with its frequent upgrades – have allowed the F-Series to gain an edge over its peers.A post-war truck boomBy the end of World War II, the car market in the United States, was, by and large, a seller’s market.From February 1942 to October 1945, the War Production Board froze automobile production for civilian use, which created pent-up demand for 5 to 9 million new cars by the time the war ended.In a race to cash in, U.S. automotive manufacturers capitalized on the expertise they had gained from manufacturing military trucks during the war and introduced trucks – in addition to cars – into the market.In the past, trucks had been marketed to farmers and business owners. These newer trucks, advertised as a more comfortable ride with larger cabins, were designed to also appeal to suburban buyers.In 1947 Chevrolet launched its Advance-Design trucks, while the now-defunct International Harvester launched its KB Series. The following year, Dodge released its B Series, and Ford introduced its F-Series.With its ‘Million Dollar Cab,’ Ford sought to gain an edge over its competitors. Ford Truck EnthusiastsWith design offerings that could appeal to a range of customers, the F-Series was an instant success. The F-Series line-up included eight models with varying sizes and cargo capacities, from the F-1, a light-truck with half-ton capacity, to the F-8, a 3-ton, heavy-duty truck.To appeal to a wider range of buyers, Ford designed a considerably more spacious and comfortable cabin. Dubbed the “Million Dollar Cab” to underscore the one million dollars the company spent on its design, this cab was wider, quieter and featured luxuries like a full interior trim, sun visors, an ashtray, and easy-to-read instrument panel.Staying ahead of the competitionSince the earliest days of the U.S. auto industry, innovation has been a critical element for sustained success. To keep up with the evolution of consumer demands and emergence of new technologies, automakers have to invest heavily on research and development. In 2017 alone, they spent more than $100 billion globally. Companies that fall behind in this innovation “arms race” tend to either go out of business or are acquired.Now in its 13th generation, the F-Series has been through more frequent upgrades and redesigns than its competitors and its innovation is a big reason for the line’s enduring popularity.We saw it in the early 1950s when Ford updated its Million Dollar Cab by designing a “Five Star Extra Cab,” which came with foam seat padding, twin horns, and improved soundproofing. We saw it in 1987 when the F-Series became the first pickup truck to introduce rear anti-lock brakes as a standard feature. And we saw this in 2014 when Ford invested US$3 billion to replace the truck’s steel body with an aluminum one, which shed, on average, 700 pounds and drastically improved the vehicle’s fuel economy.A 1987 print ad for the F-150 highlights the truck’s new anti-lock brakes. JOHN LLOYD, CC BYFor these cutting-edge upgrades, the company has been handsomely rewarded. In 2017, F-150 was the best-selling vehicle in the U.S. – a title it has held for the last 36 years. More than 40 million F-Series trucks have been sold since 1948, making it one of the best-selling vehicles in history.The bigger the car, the bigger the profitJust how important is the F-Series to Ford’s bottom line?While Ford doesn’t disclose model-level profit data, it is estimated that each F-150 earns the company an operating profit of around $10,000 and generates around 90 percent of Ford’s global profits. In fact, the line of trucks is thought to be worth more than the entire company.In general, pickup trucks, and their less-rugged siblings, SUVs, generate more profit per unit than passenger cars. According to Bloomberg, the average price of a full-size pickup truck is around $45,000, with a profit margin of roughly 25 percent; the average price of a mid-size sedan, on the other hand, is around $22,000 with a 10 percent profit margin.This might explain why other car companies are also getting cold feet about their passenger cars. Fiat Chrysler has phased out the Dodge Dart and Chrysler 200 and announced that it will retool its factories in Michigan and Ohio in order to build a new pickup truck and two new SUVs. General Motors also reportedly plans to cut production of some of its passenger cars.Car sales as a percentage of total light vehicles sales has been in steady decline since the early 1980s. In May 2018, car sales made up only 32.1 percent of all light vehicles sales in the U.S., down from a 40-year high of 83.2 percent in October 1980. According to a recent study conducted by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, people are switching to SUVs and pickups because these vehicles offer greater general utility and better on-road 4×4 capabilities and are safer.Meanwhile, low gas prices, increasing wages, ongoing economic expansion and soaring consumer confidence could mean more Americans are willing to shell out extra cash for a truck or SUV.Together, these trends indicate that the F-150’s reign as king of trucks won’t end anytime soon.
Dallaglio came to Enterprise IG because of Tutssel’s work for the Guinness Rugby World Cup in 1999, for which Glenn Tutssel designed the logo.The Dallaglio logo will first be seen on the publicity for the Dallaglio Benefit Year Dinner that will take place in Battersea Park in London on 10 December 2003. Tagged with: Consulting & Agencies Events Recruitment / people 33 total views, 1 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving. England rugby captain Lawrence Dallaglio has chosen international brand design agency Enterprise IG to create the identity for his Benefit Year.During Dallaglio’s Benefit Year there will be a host of special events and charity matches to raise money. The funds will be distributed to Cancer Research, Richard Longthorn Trust, Anthony Nolan Trust and the PRA Benefit Fund.Enterprise IG has created an identity using goal posts as the double L in Dallaglio’s name. Glenn Tutssel, director of Enterprise IG, will sit on the steering committee for the Benefit as the design advisor. Advertisement Enterprise IG to design identity for Dallaglio’s benefit year Howard Lake | 2 October 2003 | News
By Frank Neisser and Howard RotmanBostonAnti-war activists and the public gathered and rallied at Boston’s Park Street Station for a speakout against the U.S. escalation of the war in Syria. Speakers protested the Sept. 17 U.S. bombing of the Syrian government’s army positions in the eastern city of Deir Ezzur, which killed between 60 and 90 Syrian troops and wounded over 100 more.The U.S. attack was a dangerous escalation in the five-year war that U.S. imperialism initiated to bring about the overturn of the legally elected and internationally recognized government of Syria.The protesters decried the U.S. government and its allies for their continued efforts to destabilize Syria and for continuing to arm and support terrorist groups like the Al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State group (IS) in an effort to defeat the Syrian government.The U.S. Sept. 17 airstrikes facilitated the advancement of IS by targeting Syrian government forces in a strategic location already surrounded by IS.The rally was co-chaired by Susan McLucas of the Committee for Peace and Human Rights; Frank Neisser of the International Action Center; and anti-imperialist activist Daniel Haiphong. Haiphong exposed the hypocrisy of Samantha Power, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., and Washington’s war on the self-determination of the Syrian people.Pentagon sabotaged cease-fireNeisser said that the bombings ordered by the Pentagon, in defiance of the diplomatic path begun by the State Department and the president, deliberately sabotaged the Sept. 7 ceasefire agreement negotiated between Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.A large delegation from the Syrian American Forum waved Syrian flags and repeatedly led chants of “Hands off Syria! U.S. out of Syria!” Several members of the delegation spoke, including Eyad Salloum, who thanked everyone for coming out and explaining how defense of the Syrian government and demanding the imperialists leave was the only way to preserve their secular, independent country.Other speakers included Bishop Filipe Teixeira, founder of the Franciscan Order of Saint Joseph Cupertino, who opened the rally; Charles Clemons of TOUCH 106.1 FM, the voice of the Black community; John McLoud and Joan Livingston, from the Committee for Peace and Human Rights; Al Johnson, from the Smedley Butler Brigade; Jeff Klein reporting on a recent delegation to Syria; Susan Massad, of the Women’s Fightback Network; and Nino Brown, of the Answer Coalition, who condemned the U.S. regime-change destruction of many countries in the Middle East.Also speaking were Phebe Eckfeldt, of the Moorehead-Lilly election campaign of Workers World Party, and Brian Shea, of the Disabled Caucus of the International Action Center. Shea contrasted the austerity war at home, which is cutting back personal care assistants for people with disabilities, with the billions spent on wars in Syria and around the globe.New York protestSyrian Americans from across the Northeast were joined by anti-war activists at a protest outside the United Nations General Assembly in New York City on Sept. 21. They chanted “Hands off Syria!” and held a moment of silence for Syrian Arab Army troops massacred by Pentagon aircraft on Sept. 17. They also demanded an end to U.S.-NATO support for contra “rebels” and the Islamic State group.There was loud agreement from the crowd when International Action Center Co-Director Sara Flounders declared, “We need money for jobs, education and hospitals right here, not for war against Syria.”The action was organized by the Syrian American Will Association, the Syrian American Forum, Arab Americans for Syria and the IAC. It was endorsed by the Peace Council of New York and New Jersey, the People’s Organization for Progress, the United National Antiwar Coalition and Veterans for Peace Chapter 21-N.J.Greg Butterfield contributed to this article.FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare thisFacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare this
Columns15 Takeaways To Ace “Consumer Fora Litigation” In India Shivam Goel17 July 2020 9:37 PMShare This – xDetermination of compensation for the loss or injury suffered by a consumer on account of deficiency in service: In the matter of: Charan Singh V/s Healing Touch Hospital & Ors, (2000) 7 SCC 668, it was held that: “… While quantifying damages, Consumer Forums are required to make an attempt to serve the ends of justice so that compensation awarded, in an…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginDetermination of compensation for the loss or injury suffered by a consumer on account of deficiency in service: In the matter of: Charan Singh V/s Healing Touch Hospital & Ors, (2000) 7 SCC 668, it was held that: “… While quantifying damages, Consumer Forums are required to make an attempt to serve the ends of justice so that compensation awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time, aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. Indeed, calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application. While awarding compensation, a Consumer Forum has to take into account all relevant factors and assess compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation. It is for the Consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to the established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge.” Similarly, the Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of: Air France V/s O.P. Srivastava & Ors, First Appeal No. 310/ 2008 (Date of Decision: 22.03.2018) observed that: “… It is trite that in considering the quantification of compensation, a precise calculation is difficult, as no clear or straitjacketed principles can be designed for the said purpose. Hence, the exercise would invariably involve discretion and consideration of a plethora of variables, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. Some broad factors that may be considered while scrutinizing claims for compensation/ damages include: Background of the parties, both the injured and the negligent or defaulting party;The degree of negligence or these [the] verity of the defaulting act that caused the injury to the complainants;The degree of proximity or causation of defaulting acts resulting in the injury; andConsideration of alternative modes of redressal of the Complainant’s grievance like restitution, general and specific damages, other means of non- monetary compensation, etc. Needless to add that the above parameters are only illustrative and not exhaustive.” Replies to consumer complaints cannot be filed beyond 45 days: In the matter of: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., 2020 SCC Online SC 287, it was held that: The District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the consumer complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.That the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the consumer complaint by the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the consumer complaint. Whether Consumer Forums have jurisdiction in cases concerning service rendered by statutory and/ or public authorities? In the matter of: Lucknow Development Authority V/s M.K. Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243, it was held that: “… 4. What is the meaning of the word ‘service’? Does it extend to deficiency in the building of a house or flat? Can a complaint be filed under the Act against the statutory authority or a builder or contractor for any deficiency in respect of such property. … It is in three parts. The main part is followed by inclusive clause and ends by exclusionary clause. The main clause itself is very wide. It applies to any service made available to potential users. The words ‘any’ and ‘potential’ are significant. Both are of wide amplitude. The word ‘any’ dictionarily means ‘one or some or all’. In Black’s Law Dictionary it is explained thus, “word ‘any’ has a diversity of meaning and may be employed to indicate ‘all’ or ‘every’ as well as ‘some’ or ‘one’ and its meaning in a given statute depends upon the context and the subject-matter of the statute”. The use of the word ‘any’ in the context it has been used in clause (o) indicates that it has been used in wider sense extending from one to all. … The legislative intention is thus clear to protect a consumer against services rendered even by statutory bodies. The test, therefore, is not if a person against whom complaint is made is a statutory body but whether the nature of the duty and function performed by it is service or even facility. … 5. … Truly speaking it would be a service to the society if such bodies instead of claiming exclusion subject themselves to the Act and let their acts and omissions be scrutinized as public accountability is necessary for healthy growth of society. … 6. … So any service except when it is free of charge or under a constraint of personal service is included in it [Section 2 (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986]. …” That following the ratio in the matter of Lucknow Development Authority (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, recently, in the matter of: Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority V/s Vidya Chetal, SLP (C) No. 4272/ 2015 (Date of Decision: 16.09.2019) observed that: Power of the consumer forum extends to redressing any injustice rendered upon a consumer as well as over any mala fide, capricious or any oppressive act done by a statutory body. Consumer forums have jurisdiction to protect consumers against defective services rendered even by a statutory body.Sovereign functions like judicial decision making, imposition of tax, policing etc., strictly understood, qualify for exemption from the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, but the welfare activities through economic adventures undertaken by the Government or statutory bodies are covered under the jurisdiction of the consumer forums. Even in departments discharging sovereign functions, if there are sub-units/ wings which are providing services/ supply goods for a consideration and they are severable, then they can be considered to come within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. If the statutory authority, other than the core sovereign duties, is providing service, which is encompassed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, then, unless any statute exempts, or provides for immunity, for deficiency in service, or specifically provides for an alternative forum, the Consumer Forums would continue to have the jurisdiction to deal with the same.There is distinction between statutory liability which arise generally such as a tax, and those that may arise out of a specific relationship such as that between a service provider and a consumer. A tax is a mandatory imposition by a public authority for public purpose enforceable by law; and is not imposed with respect to any special benefit conferred, as consideration, on the tax payer. There is no element of quid pro quo between the tax payer and the public authority. Exactions, like tax, and cess, levied as a part of common burden or for a specific purpose, generally may not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the consumer forum. However, those statutory fees, levied in lieu of service provided, may in the usual course be subject matter of consumer forum’s jurisdiction provided that there is a deficiency in service.The law is that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has a wide reach and the consumer forums have jurisdiction even in cases of service rendered by statutory and public authorities. Such authorities become liable to compensate for misfeasance in public office, that is, an act which is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary or negligent provided loss or injury is suffered by a citizen. For the purpose of computing the pecuniary jurisdiction, the consumer forum has to take into account the value of the goods bought or services hired or availed plus compensation claimed by the complainant: That in the matter of: Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors V/s Ferrous Infrastructure (P) Ltd, CC No. 97/ 2016, NCDRC (Date of Decision: 07.10.2016) it was held as follows: “… It is evident from a bare perusal of Sections 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that it’s the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The Act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiencies in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to the consumer. Therefore, the cost of removing the defects or deficiencies in the goods or the services would have no bearing on the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction. If the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs. 1.00 crore, it is this Commission [NCDRC] alone which would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. For instance, if a person purchases a machine for more than Rs. 1.00 crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the cost of removing the said defect is Rs. 10.00 lacs, it is the aggregate of the sale consideration paid by the consumer for the machine and compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint which would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. Similarly, if for instance, a house is sold for more than Rs. 1.00 crore, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing those defects is Rs. 5.00 lacs, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission [NCDRC], the value of the services itself being more than Rs. 1.00 crore.” Territorial Jurisdiction & Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause: In the matter of: Munish Sahgal V/s DLF Home Developers Ltd., First Appeal No. 425/ 2010, NCDRC (Date of Decision: 09.02.2011), it was held that: An exclusive jurisdiction clause in an agreement conferring territorial jurisdiction exclusively to the courts of a particular State/ territory, cannot override the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.Any stipulation of an agreement which ousts the jurisdiction of District Forum from a place where the opposite party/ service provider has a branch office and the cause of action had also arisen, cannot be held to be a valid and/ or binding stipulation regard being had to the mandate contained in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.It need not be reiterated that it would defeat the very purpose and object of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, if the provisions of an agreement between a consumer and a service provider alone were to determine the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.District Forum is not a “court” within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Moreover, in the matter of: M/s. Sonic Surgical V/s National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 135, while observing that “cause of action” determines the territorial jurisdiction as regards the place where consumer complaint is to be filed or preferred, to avoid the malice of “bench hunting”, it was held that: “… Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at Chandigarh and hence under the amended Section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in Chandigarh. We regret, we cannot agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended Section 17(2) (b) of the Act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that even if a cause of action has arisen in Ambala, then too the complainant can file a claim petition even in Tamil Nadu or Gauhati or anywhere in India where a branch office of the insurance company is situated. We cannot agree with this contention. It will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench hunting. In our opinion, the expression ‘branch office’ in the amended Section 17(2)would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2)(b) of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid absurdity. [vide G.P. Singh’s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Ninth Edition, 2004 P. 79] In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.” Arbitration Clause in an agreement cannot oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum: Recently, in the matter of: M/s. Emaar MGF Land Ltd V/s Aftab Singh, Review Petition (C) No. 2629-2630/ 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 23512- 23513/ 2017, Supreme Court of India (Date of Decision: 10.12.2018), it was held that: Generally, and traditionally all disputes relating to rights in personam are considered to be amenable to arbitration; and all disputes relating to rights in rem are required to be adjudicated by courts and public tribunals, being unsuited for private arbitration. This is not however a rigid or inflexible rule. Disputes relating to subordinate rights in personam arising from rights in rem have always been considered to be arbitrable. In the matter of: Skypak Couriers Ltd V/s Tata Chemicals, (2000) 5 SCC 294, it was observed that: “Even if there exists an arbitration clause in an agreement and a complaint is made by the consumer, in relation to a certain deficiency of service, then the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar to the entertainment of the complaint by the Redressal Agency, constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, since the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.” Ratio in the matter of Skypak Couriers Ltd (Supra) was upheld in the matter of M/s. Emaar MGF Land Ltd (Supra). In Para 25, in the matter of M/s. Emaar MGF Land Ltd (Supra), it was observed that: “… 25. This Court in the series of judgments as noticed above considered the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as well as Arbitration Act, 1996 and laid down that complaint under Consumer Protection Act being a special remedy, despite there being an arbitration agreement the proceedings before Consumer Forum have to go on and no error committed by Consumer Forum on rejecting the application [under Section 8 of the A&C Act]. There is reason for not interjecting proceedings under Consumer Protection Act on the strength [of] an arbitration agreement by Act, 1996. The remedy under Consumer Protection Act is a remedy provided to a consumer when there is a defect in any goods or services. The complaint means any allegation in writing made by a complainant has also been explained in Section 2(c) [Section 2 (1) (c)] of the Act. The remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is confined to complaint by consumer as defined under the Act for defect or deficiencies caused by a service provider, the cheap and a quick remedy has been provided to the consumer which is the object and purpose of the Act as noticed above.” The complaints filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 can be proceeded with despite there being any arbitration agreement between the parties. Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted on account of civil suit having been preferred by the service provider even if the subject matter is the same agreement on which later the consumer pitches his consumer complaint: In the matter of: Yashwant Rama Jadhav V/s Shaukat Hussain Shaikh & Anr, First Appeal No. 1229/ 2017, NCDRC (Date of Decision: 10.11.2017), it was held that: Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.The remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even if two remedies, one before the Civil Court and the other before the Consumer Forum are available, it is for the litigant to decide as to which remedy the litigant wants to avail.The jurisdiction of the consumer forum is not ousted on account of a civil suit having been instituted by the service provider, even if the subject matter of the said civil suit preferred by the service provider is the same agreement which is the foundation of the consumer complaint. Consumer forums do not have jurisdiction over educational institutions: In the matter of: Manu Solanki & Ors V/s Vinayaka Mission University, Consumer Case No. 261/ 2012, NCDRC (Date of Decision: 20.01.2020), it was held that: Students are not “consumers”, education is not a “commodity”, and education institutions are not “service providers”.Even if an institution imparting education does not have a proper affiliation in imparting education, it is not rendering any service and, therefore, will be out of the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.There may be instances where there may be defect/ deficiency of service in pre-admission stages by an educational institution but as educational institutions are not rendering any service by imparting education, such instances cannot give any right to a person to approach consumer fora under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.In Para 42 of the report, it was observed that: “… Another relevant issue which was raised during the course of arguments was with respect to any defect or deficiency in the transportation which is provided by the schools/ colleges. School buses are vehicles hired by the Institutions and in most schools is made compulsory with, the prescribed fees including the cost of transportation. Children come in their own vehicles also and we are of the view that any defect or deficiency in transporting the children to the school does fall within the definition of ‘imparting knowledge’ and, therefore, the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain such Complaints arising out of these issues.” Coaching classes do not fall within the ambit of definition of “education” as defined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of: P.A. Inamdar & Ors V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors, (2005) 6 SCC 537.Coaching Centres cannot be equated to regular schools or colleges which are regulated by a Regulatory Authority and also confer a Degree/ Diploma on the student who has passed in the examinations conducted as per the rules and norms specified in a particular statute and also by the concerned Universities. Coaching Centres do not fall within the definition of “educational institutions”.Any defect or deficiency or unfair trade practice pertaining to a service provider like “Coaching Centres” fall within the jurisdiction of the consumer forums.Institutions rendering education including vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of pre-admission as well as post-admission and also imparting excursion tours, picnics, extra co-curricular activities, swimming, sport, etc. except coaching institutions, are not covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. What is “Commercial Purpose” is a question of fact to be decided in the facts of each case: The words “commercial purpose” have not been defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.A person who buys a typewriter or a car and uses them for his personal use is certainly a consumer but a person who buys a typewriter or a car for typing others’ work for consideration or for plying the car as a taxi can be said to be using the typewriter/car for a commercial purpose. If the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self- employment, such purchaser of goods is yet a ‘consumer’. Therefore, if the purchaser himself works on typewriter or plies the car as a taxi himself, he does not cease to be a consumer. In other words, if the buyer of goods uses them himself, i.e., by self- employment, for earning his livelihood, it would not be treated as a “commercial purpose” and he does not cease to be a consumer for the purposes of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.In the matter of: Sunil Kohli & Anr V/s M/s. Purearth Infrastructure Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 9004- 9005/ 2018, Supreme Court of India (Date of Decision: 01.10.2019), it was held that: “… As laid down by this Court in Laxmi Engineering Works, the explanation to Section 2(1)(d) of the Act clarifies that “in certain situations, purchase of goods for “commercial purpose” would not yet take the purchaser out of the definition of expression ‘consumer’. If the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self- employment, such purchaser of goods is yet a ‘consumer'”. This Court went on to observe that what is “Commercial Purpose” is a question of fact to be decided in the facts of each case.” Whether a complaint can be filed by a “Trust” under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? In the matter of: Pratibha Pratisthan & Ors. V/s Manager, Canara Bank & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3560/ 2008, Supreme Court of India (Date of Decision: 07.03.2017), it was held that: A reading of the definition of the words ‘complaint’, ‘complainant’ and ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 makes it clear that a “Trust” cannot invoke the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in respect of any allegations on the basis of which a complaint could be made. To put this beyond any doubt, the word ‘person’ has also been defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by virtue of Section 2 (1) (m), which defines a person as to include: a firm whether registered or not; a Hindu undivided family; a co-operative society; and/ or, every other association of persons whether registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or not.Therefore, “Trust” does not qualify as “Person” under Section 2 (1) (m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and as a necessary sequitur, it does not qualify as “Consumer” under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Homebuyers can approach Consumer Forum, RERA and NCLT simultaneously for redressal of their grievances: In the matter of: Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd & Anr V/s Union of India & Ors, 2019 SCC Online SC 1005, it was held that: Remedies available to allottees of flat/ apartments are concurrent, and such allottees are in a position to avail of remedies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, as well as trigger the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.The remedy under the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 by virtue of Section 71 (1), is not intended to be exclusive, but rather parallel to other remedies available before the Consumer Forum and the NCLT. Issue concerning “manufacturing defect” in a machinery used for commercial purpose falls within the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum, if the warranty period qua the machinery is still to lapse: The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of: East India Construction Co. V/s Modern Consultancy Services, (2006) CPJ 289 (NC), observed as follows: “… That the first issue has been answered by the Commission in the catena of judgments wherein it has been held that even though the machine/ equipment is used for commercial/ industrial purposes if any manufacturing defect occurs during the warranty period then, the issue is covered under the Act [The Consumer Protection Act, 1986] and for that purpose purchaser of the equipment is entitled to file a complaint under the Act…” Deficiency in service has to be distinguished from the tortious acts of the service provider: In the matter of: Ravneet Singh Bagga V/s KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr, (2000) 1 SCC 66, it was held that: “… The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has on facts, been found to have not established any wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent. The deficiency in service has to be distinguished from the tortious acts of the respondent. In the absence of deficiency in service the aggrieved person may have a remedy under the common law to file a suit for damages but cannot insist for grant of relief under the Act for the alleged acts of commission and omission attributable to the respondent which otherwise do not amount to deficiency in service. In case of bona fide disputes no wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance in the service can be informed (sic). If on facts it is found that the person or authority rendering service had taken all precautions and considered all relevant facts and circumstances in the course of the transaction and that their action or the final decision was in good faith, it cannot be said that there had been any deficiency in service. If the action of the respondent is found to be in good faith, there is no deficiency of service entitling the aggrieved person to claim relief under the Act. The rendering of deficient service has to be considered and decided in each case according to the facts of that case for which no hard and fast rule can be laid down. Inefficiency, lack of due care, absence of bona fides, rashness, haste or omission and the like may be the factors to ascertain the deficiency in rendering the service.” (emphasis supplied) Consumer Forums are obliged to give reasoned orders: In the matter of: M/s. Kranti Associates (P) Ltd & Anr V/s Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors, (2010) 9 SCC 496, it was held that: An authority in making an order in exercise of its quasi-judicial function, must record reasons in support of the order it makes.The rule requiring reasons in support of a quasi- judicial order is as basic as following the principles of natural justice. And this rule needs to be observed in its proper spirit.In India, the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants’ faith in the justice delivery system.Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or ‘rubber-stamp reasons’ is not to be equated with a valid decision making process.It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non, of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “Due Process”. Provision of Order I, Rule 8 of the CPC is applicable to consumer complaints filed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986: In the matter of: Anjum Hussain V/s Intellicity Business Park (P) Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 1676/ 2019 (Date of Decision: 10.05.2019), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, upheld the observations made in the matter of: Ambrish Kumar Shukla & Ors (Supra), where by it was observed that: “… The primary object behind permitting a class action such as a complaint under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act being to facilitate the decision of a consumer dispute in which a large number of consumers are interested, without recourse to each of them filing an individual complaint, it is necessary that such a complaint is filed on behalf of or for the benefit of all the persons having such a community of interest. A complaint on behalf of only some of them therefore will not be maintainable. If for instance, 100 flat buyers/plot buyers in a project have a common grievance against the Builder/Developer and a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act is filed on behalf of or for the benefit of say 10 of them, the primary purpose behind permitting a class action will not be achieved, since the remaining 90 aggrieved persons will be compelled either to file individual complaints or to file complaints on behalf of or for the benefit of the different group of purchasers in the same project. This, in our view, could not have been the Legislative intent. The term ‘persons so interested’ and ‘persons having the same interest’ used in Section 12 (1) (c) mean, the persons having a common grievance against the same service provider. The use of the words ‘all consumers so interested’ and “on behalf of or for the benefit of all consumers so interested”, in Section 12(1) (c) leaves no doubt that such a complaint must necessarily be filed on behalf of or for the benefit of all the persons having a common grievance, seeking a common relief and consequently having a community of interest against the same service provider.” (emphasis supplied) That in the matter of Anjum Hussain (Supra) it was categorically observed that: On plain language of Order I, Rule 8 of the CPC, the principal requirement to bring a suit within that rule is the sameness of interest of the numerous persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit the suit is instituted.The object for which this provision (Order I, Rule 8 of the CPC) is enacted is really to facilitate the decision of questions, in which a large number of persons are interested, without recourse to the ordinary procedure.The persons who may be represented in a suit under Order I, Rule 8 CPC need not have the same cause of action and all that is required is sameness of interest. The same principle is applicable in respect of class actions brought under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.The primary object behind permitting a class action such as a complaint under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being to facilitate the decision of a consumer dispute in which a large number of consumers are interested, without recourse to each of them filing an individual complaint, it is necessary that such a complaint is filed on behalf of or for the benefit of all the persons having such a community of interest. Views are personal only.  Ghaziabad Development Authority V/s Balbir Singh, (2004) 5 SCC 65  Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. V/s Dr. B.N. Raman, (2006) 5 SCC 727 Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Story