Skip to main content

HDFC fined for harassing consumer

Central Mumbai's district consumer dispute redressal forum on Wednesday pulled up HDFC Standard Life Insurance for failing to hand over the invested amount of a Mumbai-based consumer, even after the amount had reached its maturity in July 2013. The forum thus directed the insurance firm to hand over the entire amount of Rs1,35,188 along with 9% interest rate on the amount from June 2013. The forum also directed the insurance firm to pay an amount of Rs10,000 towards the harassment caused to the complainant, along with an additional amount of Rs3,000 towards the complainant's litigation cost.

The complainant, Kalpana Sathe on July 1, 2003, had purchased a policy from the firm by paying a premium amount of Rs9,617. According to Sathe, the policy was Rs1 lakh and its maturity amount was Rs1,35,188. After the policy was matured in July 2013, she approached the firm, however instead of handing over the maturity amount, the firm insisted that she invest the amount in the firm's other scheme.

Sathe kept on requesting the firm to pay her back the matured amount, but the firm failed to abide vby its word. In 2014, she approached the forum and filed a complaint against the firm. The forum then asked the firm to file its reply, but the latter failed to do so.

Since the firm did not respond to the allegations leveled by the complainant, the forum on Wednesday passed its orders. In its orders, the forum stated, "If an investor doesn't wish to invest its amount in any scheme, then the company cannot force them to do so. The firm has unnecessarily harassed its consumer, who is a senior citizen, and therefore, the complainant is entitled to a compensation for harassment."

Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-hdfc-fined-for-harassing-consumer-2016016

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