The Tribunal also asked Airtel, Vodafone, Idea, Aircel and Tata Tele to file their replies over the plea of state-run firm BSNL to implead in 3G roaming controversy along with DoT
New Delhi: The hearing on the 3G roaming controversy before the telecom tribunal Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) was on Thursday adjourned even as the Department of Telecom (DoT) contended the delay was leading to the operators taking advantage of the interim order, reports PTI. The TDSAT has now put the matter for next hearing on 16th February.
However, the TDSAT directed the five operators -- Airtel, Vodafone, Idea, Aircel and Tata Tele - to file their replies over the plea of state-run firm BSNL to implead in 3G roaming controversy along with DoT.
The TDSAT bench headed by its Chairman Justice SB Sinha also asked the DoT to file reply over the main petition within three weeks and operators to submit rejoinder over it.
Additional Solicitor General AS Chandiok representing DoT opposed the adjournment and said the interim protection to the operators cannot go on.
He further said TDSAT's interim order of December 24 directing the DoT not to take any coercive action against the operators should be embargoed. He also stressed that the operators should also not add new 3G customers.
However, the TDSAT Chairman said it could not modify its earlier order without hearing the both sides.
On the part of delay, the tribunal said it passed the 24th December order without giving a full hearing to DoT, but in "...meanwhile, you (DoT) filed that we have no jurisdiction. So it is pending".
On 20th January, TDSAT had dismissed DoT plea challenging the former's jurisdiction to decide on 3G roaming dispute and held it has the power to decide on government's direction on 3G roaming agreements among operators.
The Ministry said it has decided to file an appeal before the Delhi High Court against the CIC order to disclose the advice of the then SG Goolam Vahanvato to former Telecom Minister A Raja
New Delhi: The Law Ministry has decided to challenge the Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing it to disclose the advice of the then Solicitor General (SG) Goolam E Vahanvati to former Telecom Minister A Raja on spectrum allocation to telecom companies, reports PTI.
The Commission had rejected the argument of the Law Ministry that advice was given in fiduciary capacity and cannot be disclosed under exemption clauses of the RTI Act.
In a recent communication, the Law Ministry has informed RTI applicant Subhash Agrawal that "...it has been decided by the competent authority to file an appeal before the Delhi High Court against the CIC order under reference."
The information sought by activist Agrawal was refused by the Department of Legal Affairs citing exemption clause of "fiduciary relationship" under the Right to Information Act.
Mr Raja had allegedly cited the discussion with Vahanvati to press his point before the Prime Minister to go ahead with spectrum allocation as against the advice of the Prime Minister asking him to wait for some days before taking any action on the issue.
Mr Raja, on 26 December 2007, had written to the Prime Minister saying, "I have already consulted the External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee and Solicitor General of India G E Vahanvati and they have advised me that as a preemptive and proactive measure, I can go ahead with the allocation of 2G spectrum space immediately."
The then Telecom Minister, who has been arrested by the CBI in connection with the 2G spectrum scam, had written the letter in response to Prime Minister's communique to him asking him to wait for some days before taking any action on spectrum allocation.
Think twice before you accept free mediclaim offer for being a valuable credit card holder. If you bite the bait, you may end up not just paying for the mediclaim but also running around to get back your money
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat State, dismissed the appeal against the order of the Ahmedabad City Forum, holding Healthcops ICICI Lombard General Insurance Ltd and ICICI Bank liable for deficiency in service in a complaint filed by Consumer Education and Research Society (CERS), Ahmedabad, and Deepak Khatwani, a customer of ICICI Bank.
The Forum, by its award dated 30 December 2011, had directed ICICI Lombard General Insurance to credit to Mr Khatwani’s savings bank account Rs 19,049 within two months from the date of the order. The company should also pay him 7% interest on the amount from the date of its debit from his savings account to its credit to that account. The company shall also refund to him Rs2,210, illegally recovered from him, with 7% interest from the date of recovery until payment.
The Forum had also directed Healthcops ICICI Lombard General Insurance and ICICI Bank Credit Card Division, Ahmedabad, to pay Mr Khatwani Rs2,000 each for mental agony and Rs2,000 towards cost.
The complainants’ case was that ICICI Bank had issued a credit card to Mr Khatwani in February 2005. He used it occasionally, made regular payments and there had been no complaints up to February 2007.
On 16 February 2007, Mr Khatwani was telephonically informed that, he being “a valuable ICICI credit card holder, ICICI Lombard was offering him, through the bank, a healthcare policy free for two years, after which it would be chargeable. He accepted the offer and received a health policy from Healthcops ICICI Lombard. The policy mentioned, among other things, the sum insured as Rs3 lakh and the period of insurance from 22 February 2007 to 21 February 2008.
But, contrary to the terms of the offer of two years’ free policy, Mr Khatwani received an ICICI Credit Card statement dated 21 May 2007 from ICICI Bank showing the total amount due as Rs2,728.55 and reflecting EMI interest, EMI principal, service tax and late payment fee.
Mr Khatwani wrote to Healthcops ICICI Lombard and ICICI Bank, requesting them to confirm that the policy was free for two years, clear his credit card bills or else cancel his health policy, and to clear his credit card dues. Subsequent to the request, the company cancelled the policy.
What followed this letter was a seemingly unending repetition of the opposite parties’ sending monthly statements and Mr Khatwani receiving and protesting them, as the “dues” mounted, inclusive of late payment fees, interest, etc.
After a few months, Mr Khatwani started getting repeated phone calls, marked by an abusive, vulgar, uncultured language and threats of dire consequences and heavy penalty. Even an agent was sent to Mr Khatwani’s house in his absence and a female member in the house was made to pay Rs2210.
Mr Khatwani gave a legal notice to the opposite parties on 24 November 2007. Instead of replying to the notice, they issued monthly statements from November 2007 to February 2008, showing the total amount due as Rs17,117.40 (as per the February 2008 statement).
Mr Khatwani, then approached CERS which took up the matter with the opposite parties.
Meanwhile, ignoring Mr Khatwani’s legal notice, ICICI Bank slapped on him its notice on “unpaid outstanding dues of Rs17,117.40 in respect of his credit card. It called upon him to pay the amount within seven days. On failure to do so, the amount would be recovered from his savings account by exercising their right of banker’s lien.
Eventually, Mr Khatwani received a statement of transactions in his savings account for the period 1-30 April 2008, reflecting the withdrawal of Rs. 19,049.08 by debiting his savings account exercising the banker’s lien as threatened in the bank’s notice.
On 30 July 2008, CERS and Mr Khatwani had complained to the Forum.
The Forum allowed the complainant on 30 December 2011 against which ICICI Lombard filed an appeal before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad. No such appeal was filed by Healthcops and ICICI Bank.