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

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
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