Thakur
Banned
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2013
- Messages
- 14,856
- Reaction score
- 8,575
MUMBAI: A Juhu resident on Wednesday was
ordered to pay Rs 30,000 as costs to Tata Sky
for falsely claiming that the service provider's
technician had damaged a 40-inch TV while
installing the cable connection. Setting aside
a district forum order, which was in favour of
the complainant, Asif Daradkar, the
Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes
Commission said he had not produced any
documents to show he even owned such a TV.
Daradkar had moved the forum in 2007 and
claimed a compensation of Rs 2.25 lakh, the
costs of repairing the TV. He had stated the
TV was purchased in the UAE and was brought
to the city. In 2010, the forum had directed
the service provider to pay the equivalent of
1400 AED, the alleged price paid for the TV in
UAE. The service provider filed an appeal in
the state commission. On May 6, the
commission directed Daradkar to produce on
record the Customs receipt or clearance
certificate procured in respect of the TV set.
But on Wednesday, when the matter came up
for hearing, his lawyer expressed his inability
to produce those documents or to file an
affidavit and stated that the matter may be
decided on the basis of documents which
were on record, which included the invoice
for purchase issued by an electronics store in
Dubai. http://m.timesofindia.com/City/Mumb...-30K-for-false-claim/articleshow/39437820.cms
ordered to pay Rs 30,000 as costs to Tata Sky
for falsely claiming that the service provider's
technician had damaged a 40-inch TV while
installing the cable connection. Setting aside
a district forum order, which was in favour of
the complainant, Asif Daradkar, the
Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes
Commission said he had not produced any
documents to show he even owned such a TV.
Daradkar had moved the forum in 2007 and
claimed a compensation of Rs 2.25 lakh, the
costs of repairing the TV. He had stated the
TV was purchased in the UAE and was brought
to the city. In 2010, the forum had directed
the service provider to pay the equivalent of
1400 AED, the alleged price paid for the TV in
UAE. The service provider filed an appeal in
the state commission. On May 6, the
commission directed Daradkar to produce on
record the Customs receipt or clearance
certificate procured in respect of the TV set.
But on Wednesday, when the matter came up
for hearing, his lawyer expressed his inability
to produce those documents or to file an
affidavit and stated that the matter may be
decided on the basis of documents which
were on record, which included the invoice
for purchase issued by an electronics store in
Dubai. http://m.timesofindia.com/City/Mumb...-30K-for-false-claim/articleshow/39437820.cms
