Professional & Knowledgable Law Team

Friday, September 23, 2011

Fresh case against Healthyway Immigration owner


Chandigarh, September 22
The Chandigarh police has registered a fresh case against Amit Kakkar, owner of Healthyway Immigrations. In the fresh FIR registered at the police station-36, the police has named 46 complainants who were allegedly duped by the company in 2010.
This is the 10th case registered against owners of Healthyway Immigrations. DSP Anil Joshi said the case was registered after scores of complainants approached them after the booking of Kakkar in a similar fraud case. The total amount of fraud is estimated at over Rs 30 lakh. All complainants alleged that they were duped by the company on false promises of easy migration overseas. The UT Police will now move an application in the court seeking his police custody again.
Source: The Tribune

Mohali Consumer Court directs dealer to pay cost of Swift car


Mohali, September 22
Mohali-based car dealer Chittosho Motor has been directed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to pay Rs 5,34,970, the cost price of a Maruti Swift VDI car, to a Phase-VII resident on account of damage to the vehicle while with the agency for periodic service.
Holding the car dealer responsible for negligence and carelessness, the forum, comprising BS Mehandiratta, president, and SS Dhaliwal and HK Ghuman, members, directed the car dealer to pay 9 per cent per annum as interest with effect from May 8 till the date of payment.
The complainant, Ranjai Sanadi, had stated that he purchased a new car from the agency on November 4 the previous year and left it with the agency for periodic service on May 8.
He added that the company informed him during service that there was a minor problem with the car, but when he visited the agency, he found his car badly damaged.
He further said the company failed to give him a satisfactory reply on enquiry and refused to replace the car, with repeated representations to the agency failing to elicit a response.
The agency denied damaging the car. It stated that it was ready to replace the damaged parts of the car free of cost.
After hearing the arguments, the forum observed that the depressed and pensive state of mind of a consumer could be imagined when the vehicle purchased by him with his hard-earned income was damaged due to the negligence and carelessness of those with whom were entrusted for repairs and who were supposed to keep it in safe custody.

Andhra Bank penalised Rs 38,300 by Chandigarh Consumer Court


Chandigarh, September 22
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed Andhra Bank to pay Rs 38,300 to a Sector 22-B resident for its failure to forward the premium amount to an insurance company, besides levying Rs 5,000 as cost of litigation.
The district forum, comprising its president Lakshman Sharma, and members Madhu Mutneja and Jaswinder Singh Sidhu, in its order stated that the bank could recover the amount from the official(s) concerned, if the management so desired, by following proper rules.
The complainant, Shyam Lal Gupta, had pleaded that United India Insurance Company had floated “AB-Arogyadan” mediclaim policy for account holders and as he had an account with the bank, he opted for the mediclaim policy.
He said even though he had verbally directed the official concerned to debit the premium amount for the renewal of the policy on June 18, 2006 besides filling a renewal authorisation letter sent by the insurance company, the opposite party debited the amount on July 12 by which time the policy had expired.
Meanwhile, his wife was admitted to a private eye hospital for operation of the right eye. He said when he sent the request for pre-authorisation to Good Health Plan Ltd for cashless treatment, the same was declined on grounds that there was a 23-day break in the renewal of the policy, which was treated as a fresh policy, and one-year exclusion was applicable as per insurance norms.
As a result, he had to pay Rs 38,000 from his own pocket towards the medical treatment of his wife.
The counsel for the opposite party argued that as per terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant was supposed to deposit the cheque/DD with the bank for collecting the applicable premium for debiting the same to the insurance company.
The complainants had also failed to mention their account number maintained with the bank on the renewal authorisation letter. He also denied that the complainant ever requested the officer of the bank for debiting the premium to the insurance company.