Chennai Court June 2011 Judgments

Golden Multi Service Club of Gtfs and Another Vs. Saraswathi and Other ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

(The 1 to 3 respondent as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.3 lakhs with interest at 18% per annum from the date of death of the policy holder, to pay Rs.5 lakhs towards damages for mental agony, hardship and loss suffered and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.27.02.2008 in C.C.88/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 29.06.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following orderJ M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The first and second opposite parties are the appellants. 2. Thiru. Arumugam, husband of the first complainant, father of complainants 2 and 3, took an insurance policy with the third ...

Smt. K. Nuthan Vs. the Manager, V.G.P. Housing Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to execute the sale deed and to pay Rs.4,00,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony, stress and strain and deficiency of service and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.23.07.2008 in CC.No.18 /2008. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 22.06.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following orderJ A.K. ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant/ appellant, filed a complaint against the opposite parties, for the direction to execute the sale deed in favour of the complain...

R. Chandran and Another Vs. Dr. Radha Rukmani Saraswathi Hospital and ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

The complainant has filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation alongwith cost of RS.5000/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said impugned order, these appeals are preferred by the opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.16.7.2009 in CC.No.370/2009, and F.A.No.243/2009 is filed praying for a direction to enhance the compensation so granted. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 15.06.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on either side, perusing the documents filed, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The complainant and the opposite party, are the appellants in F.A.No.243/2009 and 370/2009 respectively. 2. The parties are referred in the appeal, as arrayed in the consumer complaint. 3. The co...

M/S. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Vs. Cce, Ltu, Chennai

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

1. Heard both sides. 2. Shri Madhusudhanan, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the appellants received furnace oil from M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. under an invoice and they have taken credit of the duty amount reflected in the said invoice. As such, they have not committed any irregularity. 3. However, it is the Department’s case that M/s. IOCL was not the manufacturer for the impugned goods, they obtained the same from M/s. CPCL and sold to the appellants as a registered dealer. In such a case, M/s. IOCL was required under law to indicate the actual amount of duty paid by M/s. CPCL in respect of the impugned goods and M/s. IOCL in the invoice issued by them to the appellants should have indicated the said duty amount enabling the appellants to take credit of the same. However, M/s. IOCL have sold the impugned goods at a higher value based on M/s. IOCL’s own price and have indicated a duty amount in the invoice which is more than what M/s.CPCL h...

The Post Master General and Others Vs. M. Subramanian

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh as compensation, in addition to recovery of Rs.37/- being the post charges. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.28.10.2009 in C.C.135/2009. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 20.06.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The respondent/complainant, who claims to be a Tamil Reformer, after obtaining particulars, to whom a complaint should be given for reforming tamil letters, sent an application to the Tamil Nadu Information Commissioner, who requested him to come for hearing on 3.1...

M/S. Eureka Forbes Ltd., Rep. by Its Divisional Manager and Another Vs ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellants/opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to refund the cost of Water Purifier of Rs.8,250/- or in alternative to replace with a new one, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.29.12.2008 in C.C.210/2007. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 20.06.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The complainant/respondent herein, who had purchased an Aqua Guard Water Purifier, from the first opposite party on 20.06.2006 for a sum of Rs.8,150/-, has filed a consumer...

R. Amuthavalli Vs. the Executive Engineer and Executive Officer and An ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

The appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the respondents/opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to repay the initial deposit amount and the first monthly EMI totally Rs.64,601/- with interest, to pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation for mental agony and discomfort and to p ay Rs.3,000/- towards cost. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.27.11.2008 in C.C.13/2008. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 15.06.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, the order of the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant/appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.64,601/- with the second opposite party, as initial deposit and the first monthly installment for the allotment of MIG 86 ...

indus Ind Bank Ltd., Vs. S.T. Prabhavathi

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant/opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay the cost of the vehicle along with miscellaneous charges of Rs.23,330/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of payment or in the alternative to give a new vehicle, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, strain and stress and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.23.02.2009 in C.C.102/2004. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 15.06.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. This appeal is targeted against the order of the District Forum dated 23.02.2009 in OP.102/2004,...

M/S. Sbi Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Its General Manager (Claims) ...

Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 15.06.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, Written Submission of 3rd respondent as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J. PRESIDENT 1. The first and second opposite parties in C.C.221/2008, on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, are the appellants in F.A.466/2009 and F.A.824/2010 respectively.2. The parties are referred in this order as arrayed in C.C.221/2008.3. Thiru.Sampathkumar, husband of the first complainant and father of the second complainant, had borrowed/availed housing loan of Rs.5.06 lakhs on 5.4.2003 from the second opposite party, for the purpose of construction of a residential house, in Plot No.43 in S.F. No.85/3A, Pallapalayam Village at Udumalpet. While availing the said loan, at the instance of the second opposite party, Sampathkumar had taken insurance policy with the first ...

Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Regional Bench Chennai

(Order of the Tribunal made by Justice ACA Adityan) 1. AII World War veteran, an octogenarian, has approached this Tribunal for pension after completing 10 years and 15 days of service in the army. 2. According to the applicant, he got himself enrolled in the Indian Army on 19th March 1945 as a combatant and had served for two years in the Airborne Division in Karachi and thereafter for three years in Kashmir and later at various stations in border areas and finally for want of vacancy in the Army, he was released from the Army on 2nd April 1955. According to the applicant, he had exercised his option for retention in the reserve service and he was placed in the Reserve List for 5 years. He has not realized any rehabilitation assistance after his discharge from service. His original Discharge Book was lost in fire during 1960 and therefore he applied and obtained a duplicate discharge book, wherein his retention in the reserve service was missing. In the year 1994 after knowing that Ar...