Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party who suffered an adverse order in the hands of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), is the appellant. 2. The respondent herein as complainant, has filed a case, claiming a direction against the opposite party/appellant, to pay the maturity amounts as per the Cash Certificates with interest thereon and for a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs on the grounds that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.95,800/- as per the Cash Certificate No.121979, having maturity value of Rs.1,07,824/- and deposited another sum of Rs.1,11,400/- as per the Cash Certificate bearing No.121980, having maturity value of Rs.1,25,383/-, that when he approached the bank on 28.03.97 for further renewal, it was evaded and later on, they have informed that the amount standing in the credit of the complainant had been adjusted towards the liability of a firm called M/s.Madras Leather International, situated at Chennai, that the complainan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
M.THANIKACHALAM J. PRESIDENT 1. This order shall dispose all the above appeals. 2. The complainants in all the above cases, individually, have filed complaints, seeking certain reliefs, as enumerated in the complaints, complaining deficiency of service against the BSNL, RELIANCE, BHARTI TELENET, VODAFONE MOBILE, TATA TELE SERVICES accordingly, on the grounds, either they have collected excess amount or claiming rental rebate or to restore the telephone connection or claiming refund of amount paid or to withdraw the bill, or to restore the mobile connection or to correct the bill for real consumption or to reactivate the mobile connection or to set right the wrong bills or to cancel the telephone bills including claiming compensation attributing deficiency in service as per the averments made in the respective complaints before the respective Fora. 3. The District Fora allowed the complaint to some extent in some cases, giving relief and in some cases, dismissed the complaint also as i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The application filed by the Revenue for stay of operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has directed passing of order on merits on refund claim by the Assistant Commissioner is rejected as no ground for exercise of our inherent power has been made out. 2. We take up the appeal itself for hearing as we find that the impugned order is only of remand to the Assistant Commissioner. In view of the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) has only directed remand to the Assistant Commissioner for passing a speaking order on merits, we uphold the impugned order as we do not see any warrant to interfere with the same as there is no legal infirmity therein, and dismiss the Revenue’s appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
1. The unsuccessful opposite parties in O.P.25/2005 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Salem, are the appellants. 2. The respondent in this appeal as complainant, sought certain particulars from the opposite parties, regarding the payments made by his deceased son E.R.Chandrasekaran, who was a member in the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers Social Security and Welfare Scheme 1999. According to the complainant, his son had subscribed every month Rs.20/- in the opposite parties bank, and since he died on 12.12.2003, in order to claim the benefits, since he had no particulars, he requested the bank to furnish the particulars under the letter dated 24.06.2004. The bank has not furnished the particulars, as requested and therefore he was compelled to move other parties by spending amount in sending the letters, thereby, he had also consumed considerable time. Thus accusing that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service, probably, has filed the complaint for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant/appellant based on the Proforma Invoice, paid a sum of Rs.2,98,389/- for outright purchase of Santro Car from the first opposite party, who is the dealer of the second opposite party/manufacturer. The first opposite party, at the time of handing over the demand draft, promised to delivery the vehicle within a period of one week. But, first opposite party has not delivered the vehicle as promised and effected to deliver of the vehicle, giving lame excuse. 3. The complainant was forced to cancel the booking, since the vehicle was not delivered as promised, by his letter 04.08.1999, demanding the refund of the amount with interest, for which, there was no reply. The first opposite party has not delivered the vehicle, with an expectation of price hike. Because of the deficiency committed by the opposite parties, the complainant was compelled to purchase another vehicle from some other dealer, paying excess amount of Rs.1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT. 1. The complainant took his wife to their family Dr. Revathi Ananthasubramaniam., for checkup, since his wife had noticed lump under her right breast. At her request, series of tests were conducted, and after scrutinizing the results of the test, the doctor confirmed that the complainants wife is having a problem of Carcinoma. To confirm the complainants wife decided to have second opinion and in this view they have approached the 1st opposite party, who is in 2nd opposite party hospital. He advised to consult the 3rd opposite party by name Dr.A.N.Vaidheeswaran. The 3rd opposite party, after physical examination, confirmed it to be a case of carcinoma. Thus the complainant hired the services of opposite parties 1 to 3 for consideration. 2. On 30.9.1997, at the request of the 1st opposite party, various tests such as X-ray, chest PA view, ECG were taken, and after obtaining the test report, wife of the complainant was admitted in the 2nd opposite party h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram On hearing both sides we find that the issue in dispute is namely the eligibility to credit on dumpers, tyre tube, flap etc. used in mines. There is no dispute that the mines are captive mines. Hence following the decision of the apex Court in Vikram Cement Vs. CCE, Indore 2006 (197) ELT 145 (SC), we uphold the impugned order extending the credit and dismiss the appeal. 2. The cross-objection is only in the nature of comments upon/reply to the Revenues appeal and is therefore dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appellants herein do no dispute the liability to duty of Rs.1,62,265/- as confirmed against them on the ground that they were not eligible to exemption from payment of special additional duty (SAD) in terms of Notification No. 22/99-Cus. dated 28.2.1999 and only challenge the imposition of penalty of R.2,00,000/-. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the Commissioner has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in Tarsem Singh Multani and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar 2001 (134) ELT 753 to hold that the assessees are liable to pay SAD. However, the Commissioner appears to have overlooked the fact that in the very same decision the penalty imposed on Tarsem Singh Multani and Sons has been set aside. 3. Following the ratio of the above decision we set aside the penalty. The appeal is thus partly allowed by setting aside the penalty....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
HONBLE M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The Opposite Party in COP.31/2004 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North), Chennai, is the appellant. 2. The complainant, who is running a business, in the name and style of Meta Films (India) Ltd., in order to insure the machineries, took a comprehensive policy called Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from the opposite party, covering the period from 09.07.2002 to 08.07.2003. On 30.10.2002 at about 2.00 a.m. fire broke out in the complainants factory, in which, some of the switches, ACB, Cables and other machines got burnt. On the day itself, a claim was lodged, on that basis, on 31.10.2002, a Surveyor was sent by the opposite party to assess the damage. On the very same day, without assigning any reason, the claim was rejected. Thereafter, further representation was made in writing as well telephonically. Though the complainant had insured the goods valued at Rs.6.5 crores and paid the premium alone Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Both appeals involve identical issues and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellants herein filed duty drawback shipping bills for export of burnishable upper finished leather. On examination of the consignment it was found to be semi-finished burinishable finished leather as against the declaration that it was finished leather. CLRI opined that samples drawn from the consignments did not satisfy the norms and conditions laid down for finished leather in the absence of wax coating and dying. Hence the goods were confiscated with an option of redemption and penalty was also imposed on the appellants. The orders were set aside by the Tribunal which remanded the cases for fresh decision and on remand, fresh orders which are now challenged in these appeals were passed once again upholding confiscation with an option of redemption on payment of a fine and on imposition of penalty; hence this appeal. 3. I have heard both sides. I find that in an identica...
Tag this Judgment!