Among capital goods companies, Suzlon Energy suffers mismanagement and BGR could not...
A District Forum in Gujarat ordered the post office to pay Dinesh C Parikh Rs1,01,565 with 9% interest from 4 November 2009, the date the postal department refused to return his fixed deposit or pay interest as it claimed he was not eligible to invest in the scheme
Dinesh C Parikh, a resident of Ahmedabad, retired from a government insurance company in March 2004 and deposited the Rs1 lakh he received on retirement at the Navarangpura Head Post Office under a scheme for senior citizens. As per the scheme, he was eligible to receive interest quarterly at the rate of 9% per year for the next five years. He did receive the interest every quarter, but when he asked the post office to return the principal amount with last quarter’s interest, the authorities refused. In fact, they not only refused to return the deposit and the interest, but asked him to return the interest he had been paid over the years, too. The post office said that, as per the rules of the scheme, he was not eligible to open the deposit account meant for senior citizens and was, therefore, not liable to return the interest already paid.
Dinesh then approached Consumer Education and Research Society (CERS), which filed a case in this regard in Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad, and sought payment of the principal along with interest.
During the hearing, the advocate of the opponent argued that at the time of opening the account, Dinesh was not eligible for the scheme, but his account was opened due to oversight. However, considering the merits of the case, the forum ruled in the favor of the complainant and ordered the post office authorities to pay Rs1,01,565 with 9% interest from 4 September 2009 until realisation of the payment. The forum also ordered the department to pay Rs3000 towards the mental agony faced by the complainant and Rs.1500 towards the litigation cost.
“In case of painting, the depreciation rate of 50% shall be applied only on the material cost of the total painting charges,” the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority said in a statement
New Delhi: Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) included vehicle paint under the purview of depreciable part and fixed rate of depreciation for the same, reports PTI.
“In case of painting, the depreciation rate of 50% shall be applied only on the material cost of the total painting charges,” IRDA said in a statement.
In case of a consolidated bill for painting charges, the material component shall be considered as 25% of painting charges for the purpose of applying the depreciation, it said.
The changes have been brought in as it was observed that there were no uniform practices prevailing in the market for depreciation on painting, it said.
The change shall be applicable to all motor package policies whose risk inception date falls on or after 1 February 2013, it said.
To this effect, IRDA has advised all the insurers writing motor insurance policies to make the proposed changes so that policyholders are made aware and there are minimal grievances/complaints.
At the moment, several companies don't deduct the depreciation element from the painting charges, and painting-related claims are fully reimbursed.
IRDA is of the view that paint is manufactured from polymer; it should be included in the group of plastic parts.
The regulator has fixed 50% rate of depreciation on vehicles older than 10 years.