Latest news with #DistrictCommission
The Hindu
21 hours ago
- Business
- The Hindu
Delay in settling accident claim, insurance firm directed to pay over ₹2 lakh
The Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed an insurance company to pay over ₹2 lakh with interest after finding it guilty of delay in settling claim for repair of the vehicle involved in an accident. The Future General Insurance Company Limited was directed to pay Ramesh alias Ramesh Kulal, a resident of Mani in Bantwal taluk of Dakshina Kannada district, ₹2.28 lakh with interest of 6% from March 17, 2025, the date of complaint, till realisation of the amount. It also directed the firm to also pay ₹25,000 as compensation for deficiency of service, mental agony, and inconvenience caused to Mr. Kulal. It was also asked to pay ₹5,000 towards cost of litigation. Mr. Kulal owned a light commercial vehicle, which he used as goods carrier. This vehicle was insured for ₹2.28 lakh and it was valid from February 24, 2024 to February 23, 2025. On May 11, 2024, while the vehicle was returning to Mangaluru from Sullia amidst heavy rain, the driver lost control over vehicle near Anegundi. It hit the lorry coming from the opposite side and overturned. Authorised repairer of the vehicle in Mangaluru estimated the loss at ₹4.10 lakh, which was more than the sum insured. In the complaint to the commission, Mr. Kulal said the insurance firm deliberately delayed in settling the claim, which was submitted along with necessary documents. The commission issued notice to the firm, which failed to appear. Hence it was placed exparte. Quoting the 2018 ruling of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the District Commission said: 'In the absence of version and affidavit from their (insurance firm) side, complaint allegation of the complainant (Mr. Kulal) is to be held as a proved fact'. The commission comprising of president (in charge) Somashekarappa K. Handigol and member H.G. Sharadamma on June 10 held there was deficiency in service by the insurance firm. The commission directed the firm to make the amount within 45 days from the date of pronouncement of order. Failing which amounts will carry 8% per annum interest from the date of default. Mr. Kulal may initiate civil/criminal proceedings under Section 71/72 of the Consumer Protection Act, if the firm fails to comply with District Commission's order.
Scroll.in
13-06-2025
- Business
- Scroll.in
Is WhatsApp ‘free'? Not when it monetises your data, says UP consumer panel
The Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in April issued a ruling that could upend established principles about the scope of consumer protection law online. The panel has held that a complaint filed by a WhatsApp user is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. Until now, the act has only been invoked by users of paid online services as opposed to 'free' services like WhatsApp. This is because of Section 2(7) of the Act, which specifies that only those who pay consideration for services will qualify as consumers entitled to protection. The Uttar Pradesh panel's ruling is perhaps the first time that the user of a 'free' or zero cost app has successfully relied upon the act. Millions of Indians use 'free' apps for various essential services. Now, they can qualify as consumers and benefit from the protection of this act. Though users do not pay WhatsApp 'consideration' in the traditional sense, they do so with their data – the currency de rigueur of cyberspace. This data is monetised by platforms. Over time, data has become an ever more lucrative source of revenue, enriching platforms' bottom line in novel, previously unseen ways. Deficiency in service For about 18 months, Amitabh Thakur had been seeking compensation from WhatsApp for an alleged violation of the Consumer Protection Act. Thakur had filed a complaint in the Uttar Pradesh District Consumer Commission alleging that WhatsApp's service was ' unnecessarily interrupted for six hours' in violation of its terms of service. Thakur alleged that due to this disruption 'his work was affected'. The disruption constituted a deficiency in service under the Act that entitled him to compensatory relief. But the District Commission dismissed Thakur's complaint in March 2024, concluding that he was not eligible to seek relief under the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint was dismissed in part on the grounds that Thakur did not furnish any consideration, ie, something of value for availing WhatsApp's services. As a result, his claim fell outside the ambit of the Act, which only applies to paying consumers. Thakur appealed the decision. A little over a year later, the State Commission in April set aside the District Commission's order and held that Thakur is indeed a WhatsApp consumer entitled to the Act's protections. It sent his case back to the District Commission to be registered and heard on the merits. Why WhatsApp is not free Users of 'free' online platforms do not make any monetary payment when they sign up to use the services of these platforms. But that does not mean they don't provide anything of value to social media platforms – they provide their data. When users sign up to use online platforms such as WhatsApp they have to agree to the terms of service. These one-sided, non-negotiable standard form contracts specify that users don't have to pay the platforms but can use their services only if they agree to allow platforms to collect and process their data. The data that users hand over is the item of value provided to platforms in exchange for using these services for 'free'. In fact, platforms like Whatsapp not only collect user data, they obtain a licence from users to authorise the use of their data in various ways. Scholar John Newman points out that platforms 'reap…billions of dollars in annual revenues as a direct result of…[such] exchanges with users'. Value is extracted from data in the following ways: first, platforms formulate detailed profiles of users based on the troves of data they collect. Then they match advertisers' products with users based on their profiles. Targeted advertisements have a higher chance of translating into a sale than generic advertisements, thereby earning additional revenue for advertisers. Platforms also directly sell some of this data to interested parties, which go on to glean granular insights using sophisticated analytics tools. The rise of artificial intelligence will likely supercharge the process of monetising data. Platforms will derive even more uses from the data they collect, which will enable them to commercialise data in ways not yet foreseen. In this way, the value that users provide in the form of their data will only increase. The consumption of goods and services is increasingly taking place online. Courts and consumer forums should interpret the provisions of the Act in light of this new reality. If they remain rooted in a brick-and-mortar mindset wherein paying for services means paying monetarily, they will make these guardrails of consumer protection law inapplicable online when users pay for services with data. Instead of being wedded to an anachronistic outcome, consumer forums and courts should espouse a modern mindset for the digital age – one that recognises that user data does constitute consideration paid by consumers in exchange for services. Sachin Dhawan is a technology lawyer with over 15 years of experience. He has recently taught courses on cyber law at National Law University, Delhi and National Law School, Bangalore [PACE Programme].
Time of India
06-06-2025
- Automotive
- Time of India
State consumer commission directs SBI insurance to pay Rs 11.16 lakh over delayed claim settlement
State consumer commission directs SBI insurance to pay Rs 11.16 lakh over delayed claim settlement (Photo: ANI) RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed SBI General Insurance Company Limited to pay Rs 11,16,801 to a Raipur-based firm for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in settling a vehicle insurance claim. The commission also awarded Rs 50,000 for mental agony and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs. The order, passed by President Justice Gautam Chourdiya and Member Pramod Kumar Varma, set aside an earlier ruling by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur, which had dismissed the complaint as premature. The commission noted that keeping the claim pending for an extended period, especially after the damaged vehicle was handed over as per the insurer's instructions, amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. "After accepting the surveyor's assessment, instructing disposal of the damaged vehicle, and its actual disposal, it was improper for the insurer to raise further objections. Keeping the claim pending despite receiving the wreck value amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The insurer is liable to pay the remaining Rs 11,16,801, along with compensation for mental agony and litigation costs. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like เทรดทองCFDs ด้วยค่าสเปรดที่ต่ำที่สุด IC Markets สมัคร Undo The District Commission erred in holding the claim premature, making its order unsustainable and liable to be set aside," remarked the Consumer Commission. The firm's car, insured with SBI General Insurance, met with an accident on November 8, 2019. The insurance company assessed the loss at Rs 11,16,801 and instructed the complainant to hand over the damaged vehicle to a salvage buyer, who paid Rs 13,30,000. The firm alleged that despite these actions and assurances of payment, the remaining amount of Rs 11,16,801 was not disbursed. A complaint was filed before the District Commission seeking the balance amount and compensation. SBI General Insurance, in its defence, stated that the claim was pending as the complainant had not provided clarifications and relevant documents regarding the incident. The State Commission, however, observed that the insurer had already acted upon the surveyor's settlement recommendation and instructed the disposal of the vehicle's wreckage. The commission noted that after proceeding towards settlement and the disposal of the wreckage, it was improper for the insurer to raise further objections. The insurance company has been directed to pay the remaining assessed loss of Rs 11,16,801 with 6% annual simple interest from the date of filing the complaint until realisation, along with the compensation and litigation costs. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
