Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly the facts are that the complainant booked a house with respondent No. 1 through respondent No. 2 in Sushant Lok, Gurgaon, which was being developed by respondent No. 1. He deposited an amount Rs. 3,99,172.50 as part price. It is alleged that the house which has been allotted to the complainant does not exist on the site. Consequently he filed a complaint for the refund of Rs. 3,99,172.50 with interest @ 18% p.a. and damages. 2. The complaint has been contested by the respondent. They have controverted the allegations of the complainant and have inter-alia pleaded that the house was to be delivered to the complainant by first of August 94, that the house was being constructed and he would be delivered possession of the same by that date subject to his payment of the balance amount. It is further pleaded that the site plan had been modified by the Director Town and Country Planning, Haryana and according to the modified plan the house number of the hous...
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 the respondent is carrying on business as a Builder and Mr. Sanjay Sharma is its proprietor. Mr. Sharma purchased the first and second floor of a house bearing No. A-l/66, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi, measuring 216 sq. yards from Mrs. Shanta Badhwar and made additions and alterations in its first and second floor. He also constructed the Servants Quarters on the 2nd Floor. Thereafter, he sold the rights, title and interest in the 1st floor comprising of 3 bedrooms, attached bathrooms, drawing cum dining room, study room in staircase, one kitchen front and rear balconies and one Servant Quarter together with common facilities for Rs. 8 lacs, to the complainant. 2. The complainant took possession of the house on 5th May, 1992. It is alleged that the premises have got inherent defects viz. leakage, seepage, non-provision of protective ledges, defective windows, poor quality cupboards, defective electric connections, poor qua...
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 the Complainant is a minor and Shri Rajesh Mehna is her father and natural guardian. She through her father booked a flat in building bearing No. 77/4, Krishna Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi comprising of two bed rooms, drawing and dining room for a sum of rupees nine lakhs with respondent No. 1, which is carrying on the business as builder. She at the time of entering into the agreement paid Rs. 50,000/-vide cheque No. 701040 dated 1st October, 1990 drawn on the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sarvpriya Vihar, New Delhi. The agreement was entered into by her with the builder through respondent No. 4, who was their booking agent. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the directores of respondent No. 1 and Smt. Gurcharan Kaur respondent No. 5. is the owner of the house, on which respondent No. 1 had to construct the flats. 2. It is pleaded by the complainant that respondent No. 1 after a short time stopped the construction of the ...
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 was given commercial electric connection of 10 HP in the premises in dispute for running a small atta chakki, on 7.10.90. The electric meter installed there was burnt on 13.10.91 which was replaced by the respondent at the request of the complainant. It is alleged that a bill was prepared on 7.11.91 for an amount of Rs. 38,525.77. The said amount was paid by the complainant in two instalments. After the payment of the said bill, a new meter was fixed, but it was also found defective. It was again changed by the respondent at the instance of the complainant. 2. Later on 15.3.92 she received a bill of Rs. 1,25,886.18 dated 3.2.92 which was not paid by her. Consequently her electric connection was dis-connected on 30.3.92. In Nov.:92 she received a bill of Rs. 1,29,016/- which was payable upto 26.11.92. It is alleged that the bill is illegal, arbitrary and unjusify. Consequently she filed a complaint praying that the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
R.N. Mittal, President: 1. The allegations of the complainant in the complaint are that they appointed Shri Sanjay Kumar Saxena (respondent No. 1) as a Clerk in their company. He cheated the company as he recovered amounts from 36 persons and mis-appropriated the same. It is further alleged that they made a report to the S.H.O., Police Station Dausa, Rajasthan, Respondent No. 6, but he did not investigate the matter. 2. It is further pleaded by the complainant that opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 furnished surety for respondent No. 1 and therefore, they are also liable to pay the amount. They have filed the complaint praying, that the respondents be directed to pay the mis-appropriated amount to them. 3. From the perusal of the complaint it is evident that they have made allegations of cheating against their employee and sought to recover the mis-appropriated amount from him. 4. The word service has been defined in the Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is provided therei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S. Brar, Member: 1. Complaint has been filed under Section 2(1)(c) and Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. Complainant is an incorporated company under the Indian Companies Act purchased a Contessa Classic car from M/s. Classic Motor ,Pvt. Ltd for the use of its Chairman-Cum Managing Directors personal cum family use by taking a loan of Rs. 1,49,205/- from opposite party No. 1 The said loan was to be repaid in 36 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 5,413/- only and for this the complainant excuted a loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 27th January, 1990. Thirty sever blank signed cheques were issued by the complainant towards the payment, of the above mentioned 36 instalments over a period of three years, instalments being payable monthly, Complainant insured the said vehicle with M/s. Oriental Insurance Company and paid the premium for the year 1990-91 by handing over a cheque for the premium amount to the Citi Bank (Opposite party No. 1) for being handed over to oppos...
Tag this Judgment!