Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Dr. A.N. Saxena, Member: 1. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Delhi Development Authority floated a scheme for allotment of shops/ stalls for the Schedule Castes/Schedule Tribes category. The complainant belonging to the Schedule Caste category applied for allotment under the said scheme vide application No. 8669 dated 15.3.88 and deposited the earnest money of Rs. 2,000/-. The complainant was declared successful in the draw of lots of allotment under this scheme which was held on 12.8.88. She was issued by the respondent an intimation-cumdemand letter dated 22.11.88 calling upon her to deposit 25% of the reserve price of the shops/ stalls amounting to Rs. 33,600/- together with documentation charges, annual ground rent, maintenance charges amounting to Rs. 36,660/- within 60 days together with necessary documents. The complainant complied with these requirements and deposited the said amount of Rs. 36,660/- on 18.1.89 alongwith an application stating that the necessary docume...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This revision petition has been filed by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum dated 3rd June, 1993 by which they have been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- alongwith interest @12% p.a. from 1-6-84 to the date of payment and Rs. 1,000/-as compensation to the complainant. 2. Briefly the facts are that the complainant deposited Rs. 5,000/- with the opposite party on 29-4-91 in a scheme providing interest 12% p.a. He received interest upto 1-6-84 and thereafter, no interest was paid to him by the opposite party. Consequently he filed a complaint before the District Forum for refund of the amount and interest on that amount. The opposite party contested the complaint and denied their liability to pay the amount. 3. The District Forum decreed the claim of the complainant as mentioned above. The opposite party has filed a revision petition against the said order to this Commission. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent raised an obj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts are, that the complainant is the owner of the Maruti Van bearing registration No. DAE-4623 which was hired by Shri Rajbir Singh, S/o Shri Rattan Singh, R/o Vill. and P.O. Jaffarpur Kalaan, Delhi-73, (hereinafter referred to as the lessee) from them. 2. An agreement between the complainant and lessee was executed on 17th December, 1988. The vehicle was stolen and the report was made to the police under Section 364/34 IPC which was registered as FIR No. 96 of 1989 dated 23rd March, 1989. The police ultimately closed the case on the ground that the vehicle was not traceable. The complainant lodged a claim with the respondent but the same was repudiated by them on the ground that the vehicle was being used as a Taxi by them. The complainant filed a complaint against the respondent before the Commission for recovery of price of the vehicle and the damages. 3. The complaint was contested by the respondent inter-alia on the ground that the complain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts of the case are, that respondent No. 2 M/s. Delhi Hospital Supply Corporation is carrying on the business of Hospital and Medical Equipment supplies in Delhi and respondent No. 1 is its President. The complainant purchased one Karl Storz End vision Camera from the respondent on 13.5.91 for a consideration of Rs. 2,69,036.25 (Rupees Two Lacs Sixty Nine Thousands Thirty Six and Twenty Five Paise only). It is pleaded, that the complainant is invited to national and international conferences to deliver lectures and read papers on her research on the new technique in pelvis copy surgery and the camera was purchased by her for research work mainly. 2. The camera carried a warranty for a period of one year. However, it developed defects in late Feb. 1992 and went out of order on 10.3.92. On her complaint to the respondents their Technical Manager, Mr. Surinder Mehta examined it and said that it was required to be sent back to Germany for repair/rep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts are that the respondent is carrying on the business of construction of flats. They advertised in leading newspapers that they were giving flats at Bau Makkhan Singh House, Jhandewalan Tower on concessional rates i.e. @ Rs. 900/- per sq. feet, to retired defence personnel in order to help them to have regular income source. They offered the commercial space of 100 sq. feet only to such persons. It was alleged by them that the market rate of the space was Rs. 1,600/- per sq. feet. The applicant was required to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- in the first instance and the balance amount in easy instalments linked with the construction. 2. The Complainant, it is pleaded, attracted by the advertisement applied for a flat and deposited a total amount of Rs. 45,000/-as detailed below:S.No.AmountDate of DepositReceipt No.1.Rs. 10,000/-15.12.91Form No. 049232.Rs. 25,000/-25.1.92.Receipt No. 92313.Rs. 10,000/-1.2.92Receipt No. 9953Rs. 45,000/-The respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This is a case of double allotment of a flat to the complainant. The matter is covered by our decision in Shanti Devi v. Deputy Director of Housing (Case No. C-621/92) decided on 21st January, 1994. 2. Consequently, the complainant is entitled to allotment of the flat at the same price at which the flat was allotted to him in the draw for first time on 3.7.1990. He is further entitled to get interest from the respondent @ 10% p.a. from the date of the deposits till the date of delivery of possession and Rs. 12,500/- as damages. We order accordingly. The respondent is directed to pay the amount of interest and the damages within a period of three months, failing which action shall be taken against them under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Costs Rs. 500/-. 3. Cost of Rs. 200/- paid by the DDA vide Cheque No. 4986168 dated 7.2.1994. Complaint allowed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This order will dispose of Appeal Nos. A-167/92, A-183/92 and A-184/92 which contain common questions of law and fact. The facts in the judgment are being given from Appeal No. A- 167/92. 2. The complainant booked as eat from Jammu to Delhi with the respondents. It is alleged that at Jammu he was not provided a seat in the bus and that he had to travel up to Delhi in standing position. Thus, he suffered discomfort during journey. He also made a report to the Police Station, however, no action was taken by the Police against the transporter. Consequently, he filed a complaint in the District Forum for recovery of the damages for mental torture and harassment and for refund of the fare. 3. The learned District Forum issued notices to the respondents but no one appeared on their behalf. However, it dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Forum at Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. The complainant has come up in appeal against the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
R.N. Mittal, President: 1. This appeal has been filed by the Complainant against the order of the District Forum dated 29th October, 1992 granting him Rs. 500/- as damages. The Complainant did not file the certified copy of the order alongwith appeal. Rule 8 of the Delhi Consumer Protection Rules provides that each memorandum shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the order of the District Forum. Consequently, it is not an appeal in the eye of law and liable to be dismissed on this short ground. 2. For the aforesaid reasons we dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be given/sent to the parties. Appeal dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Dr. A.N. Saxena, Member: 1. Briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant Shri Vinod Kumar Nagrath had purchased a Swraj Mazda Truck No. DBI-6438 in the year 1987 which was financed by the Delhi Financial Corporation. The truck was insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. for a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- under a Comprehensive Insurance Policy which was valid for 1991-92. 2. The said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on G.T. Road on 18.12.91 when the complainant was driving the vehicle from Jagdishpur towards Delhi in Distt. Bulandshahar. Extensive damage was caused to the vehicle and the complainant was also injured and remained confined to bed from 18.12.91 to 24.6.92. Immediately after the accident an FIR was lodged with the Police Station Sikandrabad on 19.12.91. Complainant further informed the respondent Co. Branch Office in Bulandshahar on 24-12-91. It has been stated that on receipt of this information, the respondent-Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor M/s. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts of the case are that Sh. M.L. Sharma, respondent No. 2 purchased a Montana Car. The complainant purchased that car from Mr. Sharma on 9.7.90 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The sale, it is alleged, was effected in favour of the complainant by Mr. Sharma during the warranty period. It is further alleged that Mr. Sharma had purchased the car for Rs. 98,000/- and availed of only one service during the warranty period. 2. It is pleaded that the car suffered from a large number of defects regarding which complaints were made to respondent No. l but the same could not be rectified by them. Consequently, it has been prayed that the respondent be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 98,000/-, the price of the car and pay Rs. 10,000/- on account of taxes, insurance, etc. and Rs. 50,000/- as damages. 3. The complaint has been contested by the respondent inter-alia on the ground, that the complainant has no right to institute the present complaint as he i...
Tag this Judgment!