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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more