The eThekwini municipality has suspended its program to reduce the debt burden for electricity payments due to a shortage of meters.
In the implementation of the 80/20 energy consumption management program, the eThekwini Municipality encountered the problem of a deficit of electricity meters. This issue was recognized as one of the serious ones requiring urgent resolution, according to the municipality's Audit Risk Committee (ARC).
Professor Imtiaz Wali, chairman of the ARC, presented the third-quarter report, ending March 31, 2026, at the eThekwini Executive Committee (EXCO) meeting on Tuesday. The report indicated that 48% of the issues identified by Internal Audit had been resolved, while the remaining 52% are in progress.
According to the South African Auditor-General (AGSA) audit log as of March 31, 2026, 41% of the matters raised by the AG have been resolved, and 59% remain in progress. Of the 13 matters affecting the audit report, only three were addressed by the specified date.
The ARC advised management to ensure that the measures taken address the root causes of the auditors' observations. Wali emphasized that the committee insists that management guarantees the prevention of recurrence of deficiencies and ensures consistent and continuous implementation of measures.
Eight unresolved Material Irregularities (MI) were noted as 'in progress'. Four of these relate to potential financial losses, and four relate to environmental and/or public damage. Wali expressed concern that the municipality annually receives new material irregularities from the Auditor-General, and the implementation of recommendations is ineffective.
The ARC committee also pointed out that the 80/20 debt burden reduction program is experiencing operational stagnation, evidenced by decreased public participation and delays in application completion. The report revealed that an incorrect interpretation of the debt collection policy for the 80/20 led to the Suprima sales system ceasing debt collection after collecting 60% of the client's initial outstanding debt, which violates the approved policy. Furthermore, it was observed that debt repayments from the sales system reflected in the billing revenue management system were not being displayed, which did not lead to a reduction in customer debt. ARC also noted the absence of a monthly reconciliation between the sales system (Suprima) and the billing system (revenue management system).
The committee recommended that management rectify these shortcomings, considering the risks associated with revenue and debt management. City Manager Musa Mbele stated that due to the meter shortage, the program has not accelerated as planned and is currently suspended. Mbele added that the recommendations from the report will be considered if the program is resumed in the future.
Electric vehicle manufacturer Ather Energy announced on Tuesday that it has successfully raised ₹1300 crore through a Qualified Institutional Placement (QIP). This placement was launched on July 15 as part of a larger capital infusion plan amounting to ₹2500 crore.
The offering received a positive response from both foreign and domestic institutional investors. Leading Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) participating included ADIA, White Oak, and William Blair. Domestic Institutional Investors (DIIs) involved were HDFC Mutual Fund, Axis Mutual Fund, and Edelweiss Mutual Fund, the company reported.
Ather Energy completed the closure of the ₹1300 crore QIP by issuing 1.08 crore shares at a price of ₹1202 per share. This outcome indicates high investor confidence in the company. The company specified that the raised capital will be directed towards supporting Ather's growth initiatives, including production expansion and new product development, as well as strengthening institutional investor trust in the company's long-term development strategy.
The QIP deal, which closed on Monday, was oversubscribed eight times, and the transaction occurred at a premium to the trading price. This phenomenon demonstrates immense faith from shareholders and investors in the company. Co-founder and CEO of Ather Energy, Tarun Mehta, noted this in an X post on Tuesday. Mehta added that he, along with many existing company partners, including co-founder Swapnil, is also investing in a larger funding round at this stage of Ather's development.
US President Donald Trump has proposed a phased plan to introduce tariffs on imported generic drugs, which could reach 200% by 2028, aiming to stimulate American production. This move is significant for the Indian pharmaceutical industry and bilateral trade.
Under the proposal, generic medicines imported into the US will be subject to zero tariffs for two years, starting August 1st. After this, the zero-tariff period will be extended for another year, after which the rate will increase to 100%, eventually reaching 200% in August 2029. This phased structure is intended to give pharmaceutical companies time to relocate manufacturing capacity to the US before punitive duties take effect.
Trump stated in a post on Truth Social that this measure aims at 'bringing generic drug manufacturing back to America,' penalizing companies that fail to build factories and equipment within the specified period.
This announcement is part of Trump's broader strategy to bring pharmaceutical manufacturing back to the US and reduce dependence on foreign supply chains. According to Trump, the policy's goal is to protect US citizens, while policies regarding patented, branded, and innovative drugs will remain unchanged.
Trump has repeatedly argued that the US pays significantly more for medications than many other countries and has sought to address accessibility issues by reforming the pharmaceutical sector. This issue has gained political importance ahead of the 2026 US midterm elections. Previously, in April 2025, his administration initiated an investigation under national oversight of pharmaceutical imports according to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. In April of this year, Trump signed an executive order tightening tariffs to 100% on imported branded pharmaceutical products, provided manufacturers agree to government price agreements or commit to producing in the US.
The immediate impact on Indian pharmaceutical exports is likely to be limited due to the proposed two-year tariff-free period. This transition period allows Indian manufacturers to review their supply chains, export strategies, and potential investments in US production. However, the projected increase to 100% and ultimately 200% tariffs could eventually affect Indian exporters who do not establish a local manufacturing base.
India is one of the largest suppliers of generic drugs to the US. Pharmaceuticals account for one of India's top three exports to the United States, amounting to $10.5 billion in 2024-25, according to government data. Indian generics constitute nearly 40% of volume prescriptions in the US market, making the sector particularly vulnerable to sharp tariff increases.
India is also a leading supplier of finished generic dosage forms to the American market. Analyses based on data from the US Food and Drug Administration and trade data estimate that Indian manufacturers provide about 40-50% of total generic prescriptions in the United States. Thus, the proposed tariffs could significantly affect India's pharmaceutical exports if companies do not localize production.
According to Bloomberg, it remains unclear what portion of Trump's proposed tariff burden Indian pharmaceutical companies will ultimately face. Drug tariffs could negatively impact over 40% of India's exports to the US. Previous threats by Trump also jeopardized several commonly prescribed drugs from India, including contraceptives and medications for hypertension and depression. Regarding birth control pills, Bloomberg reported that approximately 65% of prescriptions filled in the US in 2024 were produced by two Indian manufacturers—Glenmark Pharmaceuticals and Lupin.
The pharmaceutical sector is also facing broader trade uncertainty. Jamieson Green, a representative of the US Chamber of Commerce, indicated that the Trump administration may soon introduce new trade measures against about 60 economies, including India, on allegations related to forced labor imports. Washington has proposed an additional 12.5% tariff on imports from India as part of this investigation, although a final decision has not been announced.
Beyond pharmaceuticals, Trump's tariff measures have put pressure on several export-oriented sectors in India. Labor-intensive industries such as textiles and apparel, precious metals and jewelry, leather and footwear, chemicals, engineering goods, and auto components remain most vulnerable due to their reliance on the US market.
According to a Times of India report, although exporters noted increased demand from American buyers in recent weeks, uncertainty regarding potential US tariff measures has delayed the signing of firm orders. Buyers have postponed purchases pending greater clarity on Washington's trade policy. It is reported that sectors including chemicals, textiles, carpets, and leather have attracted greater interest from US buyers, though this has not yet resulted in significant contracts.
Government data showed that India's exports to the US decreased by 1.21% year-on-year to $8.17 billion in June, while imports rose by 33.86% to $5.5 billion.
India and the US have been negotiating a bilateral trade agreement for several months as both countries seek to deepen trade and investment ties. These negotiations have gained more significance amid expectations of new US tariff announcements at the end of this month.
The government recently informed Parliament that it is closely monitoring all developments and continuing engagement with the US administration. India's Minister of Commerce and Industry, Piyush Goyal, held high-level meetings with US Chamber of Commerce representative Jamieson Greer regarding a comprehensive trade agreement. Although Goyal dismissed reports that India was waiting for better terms, he emphasized that India and the US are actively negotiating, and New Delhi will not concede on its core interests in any trade pact.
In February, Trump announced a temporary trade agreement with India that eased tariff tensions by lowering US rates on Indian goods from an effective 50% to 18%. The agreement also suspended a proposed additional 25% tariff related to India's purchases of Russian oil and reduced mutual tariff rates from 25% to 18%. In return, India agreed to lower or eliminate tariffs on a range of American industrial, agricultural, and consumer goods, with both sides committing to continue negotiations on a broader bilateral trade agreement.
Later, the mutual tariffs ceased to apply following a US Supreme Court ruling on February 20th, which invalidated them. Nevertheless, a 10% tariff remains in place on certain goods from all countries under Section 122 of the US Trade Act of 1974.
[ ]This article examines a recent dispute concerning an income protection policy, highlighting the risks associated with the ambiguity of insurance contracts and the importance of consumer vigilance when managing their insurance rights.
The latest annual report from the National Financial Ombudsman Scheme (NFO) presents an example of how protection can be nullified due to unclear contract wording. In this case, an insurer that had regularly paid benefits for over ten years subsequently claimed that these payments were made erroneously because of ambiguity in the policy text. This incident serves as a reminder that written terms are crucial in insurance agreements.
The dispute involved a client known only as Mr. G, who took out an income protection policy in February 2007. The policy guaranteed a monthly benefit of R45,000 if illness prevented him from working, and also provided for an annual increase of this benefit by 10%. The policy became effective in April 2007, and just a few months later, in July 2007, Mr. G fell ill and submitted a claim. The insurer approved the claim, and the first payment was made on July 22, 2008.
For the next 11 years, the insurer increased Mr. G's monthly benefit by 10% annually. However, in 2019, the insurer notified him of an incorrect application of the annual increases. It stated that the policy stipulated an increase linked to inflation measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), with a maximum increase of 10%. According to the insurer, the fixed 10% increases arose from a systemic error and did not correspond to the intended policy terms. Mr. G referred this matter to the Ombudsman.
This dispute raised important questions regarding contract law and the interpretation of insurance policies. An independent legal opinion examined two legal principles that could support Mr. G's case: quasi-mutual assent, also known as the theory of reliance, and the rule of contra proferentem. The principle of quasi-mutual assent applies when one party's conduct leads another party to reasonably believe that a certain clause in the contract is part of the agreement. The rule of contra proferentem states that where there is ambiguous wording in a contract, it should be interpreted against the interests of the party that drafted it.
In Mr. G's situation, the legal opinion found that he had every reason to rely on the interpretation of the policy proposed by the insurer. The quote mentioned an annual increase of 10%, the policy documentation featured the number 10%, and the insurer consistently paid these increases for over ten years. Nevertheless, the policy wording appeared contradictory: one provision suggested a fixed annual increase of 10%, while another linked increases to the CPI.
The Ombudsman ruled in favor of Mr. G, determining that the insurer must continue to pay the fixed annual increases of 10%. The decision was based on both the theory of reliance and the ambiguity of the policy wording favoring the insured. The insurer appealed this ruling.
However, the Tribunal reached a different conclusion on appeal. While acknowledging that the policy wording was poorly drafted, it held that the contract could still be interpreted consistently. The Tribunal concluded that the policy distinguished between voluntary benefit increases prior to the claim, which were linked to higher premiums, and increases after the claim, which were solely intended to maintain the value of the benefit against inflation. It ruled that the insurer's payment of fixed 10% increases over 11 years was an administrative error, not evidence of a contractual obligation. The appeal was successful, limiting Mr. G's future annual increases to CPI figures capped at 10%.
Despite overturning the Ombudsman's decision, the Tribunal did not require Mr. G to return the higher benefits he had already received. Instead, future CPI-linked increases would be calculated based on the higher benefit amount already being paid, leaving him in a better position than if the error had been corrected initially.
Denis Gabriels, lead ombudsman for NFO's life insurance department, noted that this case highlighted the importance of consumers actively managing their insurance policies, rather than assuming that long-term payment practices accurately reflect contractual rights. Gabriels strongly urged consumers to take several practical steps before and after purchasing coverage:
Carefully read the policy wording, paying close attention to clauses regarding benefit increases, exclusions, and definitions. Ask questions about any contradictory wording, such as references to both fixed percentage increases and CPI-linked adjustments, before signing the policy. Obtain written confirmation of any promises regarding benefits or annual increases, instead of relying on verbal assurances or marketing materials. Seek advice from a broker, financial advisor, or lawyer if any aspect of the policy is unclear. Raise concerns with the insurer or NFO as soon as discrepancies arise, as disputes are generally easier to resolve before they become entrenched.
Gabriels emphasized that this dispute demonstrates that consumers cannot rely solely on past payment patterns as proof of their contractual rights. She added: 'Contracts can be complex; systems can fail, and the understanding of promises can change. What remains is the consumer's responsibility to stay informed, ask questions, and protect their own future. Income protection can still be a lifeline when work becomes impossible, but only if vigilance and clarity are woven into every stage of the journey.'
