In a few weeks, discoms will have to pay the price for every deficiency in service. On Wednesday, power regulator Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) held a public hearing on its proposal to hike the penalty amount payable by discoms as suo motu compensation if they fail to pay the original penalty for deficiency in service. All the penalty amounts under the performance standard regulations may also be doubled. Sources said the new penalty amounts will be effected in another month.
If the discoms does not pay the compensation suo motu, then the consumer will have to be paid compensation which is five times the original amount,” said a DERC official. The draft also proposed that all consumer complaints that were made using any medium — telephone, SMS or even in writing had to be routed through a call centre, a unique compliant number and a permanent record of the complaint had to be made. The discoms have been asked to ensure that they run call centres with sufficient number of officials or employees for effective complaint handling.

This seems to be a good effort, but only if it is carried through and discoms have to pay penalty at a level that bites them.

Reserve Bank Deputy Governor, Usha Thorat, said abolishing the practice of levying pre-payment penalty on loans could prompt lenders to hike interest rates to pass on their burden to customers. “There is a chance that banks may pass on this burden to customers (if the prepayment penalty is abolished),” Thorat told reporters.
Banks usually impose a penalty in the range of 2-3 per cent on those customers who choose to close their loan amount before maturity. This, bankers said, would impact their interest earnings besides increasing lending risk.

A police official has landed in trouble for interfering in a money dispute in 2007. The State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) has directed Mayilvaganan, the then DSP of Srivaikundam in Tirunelveli district, to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation to Rajarathinam and his brother of Tiruchendur. The state government should first pay the compensation and then recover it from the police official, the Commission said.
Commission members A R Selvakumar and S Paramasivan, rejected the DSP’s contention and said the police had no jurisdiction to act in a dispute that was civil in nature. Further, the DSP hadn’t produced the original or copy of the complaint allegedly given by Ravi’s family. Oral testimony of Rajarathinam and his brother appeared to be natural, cogent and believable exposing the DSP’s high-handedness.

The complainant alleged that the defendants cancelled the demand letter and informed him that his request for SBI international card was admitted when he clarified to them that he had applied for SBI card only. But again no card was sent to him. SBI Cards on July 11, 2006 sent him an account payee cheque for Rs 10,000 of SBI, Gurgaon issued in his name and directed to deposit the same in a new SBI card number.
SBI Cards did not appear in the forum despite the service of notice. The presiding officers heard the complaint ex-parte and decided in favour of the petitioner, Rajesh Mehra after going through the documentary evidence and arguments. The judges observed that the entire proceedings were initiated by the SBI Cards, hence it was liable to pay the damages.

HC allowed an appeal filed by one Prakash seeking compensation for his unborn child as his plea was ignored by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT). The court, however, made it clear that the dead foetus cannot be compared with a grown-up child, because by then a child’s presence in the life of his or her parents has created enough memories for them to feel greater pain at the loss of their child. This pain will be lesser were an unborn child to die as in that case there will be no memories to cherish.
“This court holds that an unborn child — aged five months onwards in mother’s womb till its birth — is treated as equal to a child… the foetus is another life in a woman and loss of foetus is actually loss of child in the offing,” HC reasoned, while allowing the appeal and the compensation of Rs 2.5 lakh along with an interest rate of 7.5 per annum to Prakash.

But investors have to be careful about their investments in such products. After some investors burned their fingers in some FMP offerings in 2008, the product was not as safe as it seemed. “Poor credit quality of papers and illiquidity of instruments were chief reasons behind the problems faced by FMP investors,” says Devendra Nevgi, founder of Delta Global Partners, a Mumbai-based investment advisory firm. As regulators have banned mutual funds from giving out indicative yields and portfolios that induced the investors in the past, it is difficult to judge the offerings in the market. “A fund manager may end up chasing higher yield at the cost of the quality of paper. This is a big risk an FMP investor faces,” says Nandkumar Surti, CIO of JP Morgan AMC.
So if you are sure you do not require the money for say, 12-15 months, you can consider an FMP. Given the abundant liquidity in the market, this may not be the best time to invest. “Short-term rates up to one year are expected to go up by 100 basis points. In February and March, investors may come across better opportunities, given the traditional withdrawal of liquidity owing to year end,” opines Mr Nevgi.

The Delhi Consumer Commission has upheld a lower forum order, directing a city-based hospital and its doctor to pay Rs five lakh compensation to the family of a victim of medical negligence. The commission noted that the neck movement and blood pressure of the patient was found to be normal before the operation but developed complications soon after the surgery.
The appellants contended that the family members were told about the risk associated with the operation and there were no negligence on their part as she died due to cardiac arrest. The commission said that from the medical tests of the deceased before the operation, it was clear that the patient was not suffering from any heart-related disease.

The high court bench of Justices Sharad Bobde and S J Kathawala on Monday dismissed as withdrawn an appeal filed by the company challenging an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. And, in response to an appeal filed by accident victim, Shweta Mehta, seeking an enhanced compensation from New India Assurance, the HC castigated the company for its “miserly” attitude and directed it to pay her the Rs 21.23 lakh that the tribunal had ordered in 2007 along with interest. “Pay the difference in amount already paid out of Rs 21.23 lakh at the rate of 12% from date of filing the petition till December 2002 and then at 7.5% between 2003 to 2006 and then again at the rate of 10% between January 2007 till the final amount is paid up.”

We take insurance in order that the money can help us in bad times, or at the loss of the money earner of the household; however, when the insurance company refuses to help us, it can be really problematic. In the case of accidents, it is the responsibility of the insurance company that has insured the vehicle to pay out compensation to the accident victims.

District consumer forum penalized Air Canada on Wednesday for deficiency in service and causing mental harassment to Sector-43 resident Inderpreet Kaur. The airline was directed to refund Canadian dollars 632.98 to the complainant and pay Rs 5,000 as damages along with Rs 2,000 as cost of litigation as it overcharged for the ticket of her minor son Jaideep.
Their two children were to accompany them. She stated that Jaideep was less than two years old at the time and they paid the fair for ‘infant’ category in his case. As Jaideep’s birthday fell on June 17, he was to become ineligible for the low-price ticket during the trip. Kaur said the travel agency was told about this and the staff there informed her that Jaideep would be allowed to travel on the ticket even after he attained the age of two as the round trip was to begin when he was an infant.

Companies that were once content to fight in grocery-store aisles and on television commercials are now choosing a different route – filing lawsuits and other formal grievances challenging their competitors’ claims. Longtime foes like Pantene and Dove, Science Diet and Iams, AT&T and Verizon Wireless, and Campbell Soup and Progresso have all wrestled over advertisements recently.
Dueling advertisers, however, argue that these claims can mislead consumers and cause a pronounced drop in sales. Because advertisers are required by law to have a reasonable factual basis for their commercials, their competitors are essentially demanding that they show their hand. The goal is usually not money but market share. Companies file complaints to get competitors’ ads withdrawn or amended. The increase in these actions may be a reflection of the dismal economy: during recessions, when overall spending lags, marketers must fight harder for customers.