Skip to main content

Executives' Conduct: Bharti Airtel Ltd to Pay Rs. 5 Lakh

A consumer forum here has asked Bharti Airtel Limited to pay Rs. 5 lakh, saying it was a fit case for "punitive damages" to teach the company a "lesson".

The New Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided over by C K Chaturvedi, asked the company to pay Rs. two lakh to complainant Jasmeet Singh Puri, the CEO of a private firm.

Jasmeet Singh Puri in his complaint had alleged that executives of the firm had harassed him by repeatedly asking him to pay the bills he had already paid.

"After considering the material...particularly the act of discontinuing services despite payments and raising bills again shows a lack of coordination between different department of OP1 (company) whereby complainant is made to suffer; all due to internal mismanagement as well as lackadaisical attitude of OP1 executives towards the very people who provides a market for their services," the forum said.

"We hold that it is a fit case for punitive damages to teach OP1 a lesson, so that its executives are disciplined and deterred from such behaviour to innocent consumers," it said in a judgement passed on September 4.

The forum observed that the executives had replied to Mr Puri's e-mails in an insincere manner with no efforts to reconcile the issues raised by him.

"... which clearly proves that mischief conduct of OP1's representatives, which appears to be deliberate and mala fide, with a purpose and design to harass the responsible professional, to heap insults, humiliation, mental agony by crass and bizarre attitude of OP1," the forum said.

It directed the company to pay the remaining Rs. 3 lakh to the State Consumer Welfare Fund.

Mr Puri had approached the forum alleging that he had given a cheque of Rs. 4,995 to the company on March 4 last year for installation of landline phone and modem for Internet service.

He said after installation was done, he and his family started receiving calls from company's executives that the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds but when he checked it from his bank, he found that amount was credited on March 9, 2013

 Article referred: http://profit.ndtv.com/news/commodities/article-executives-conduct-bharti-airtel-ltd-to-pay-rs-5-lakh-660374

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more