Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, PresidentWhenever there is chaos, may be of any kind in any field in this city every authority starts passing the buck onto each other. It is rightly said that too many cooks spoil the broth. May be this is the price capital city has to pay for having multiplicity of authorities. 2. At the outset we feel constrained to observe that year after year Municipal Corporation of Delhi makes tall claims of cleansing and de-silting of drains of the city that are about 1296 in number which are more than four feet in depth and width spending crores of rupees but every time whenever there is little heavy rains, most of the roads get water-logged due to overflowing drains as life of entire city goes haywire. MCD made tall claims before us by filing a highly detailed affidavit in the year 2006 projecting that it had de-silted and cleansed all the drains and nullahs by keeping all the 96 pumping stations functional around the year and also deploying portable pumps and by sett...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. On account of having sold highly defective motorcycle and also having represented as to the average of 92 kms whereas it hardly gave average of 55 kms, the appellant has been vide impugned order dated 5.8.2005, directed to replace the motorcycle and to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation towards harassment and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation. 2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Allegations of the respondent leading to the impugned order in brief were that he purchased a Kinetic Motor Cycle model Velocity bearing registration No. DL 3S AH 4928 from appellant No. 2 for Rs. 40,792 on 24.10.2003. He was assured that the motorcycle will give an average of 92 kms for 1 Ltr. Petrol and that it has excellent pick up. In case of any manufacturing problem the vehicle would be replaced by the appellant No. 1. After about one month of its purchase, respondent found that vehicle was heating up even on driving for a few minutes and its pick up...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Respondent is student of the appellant school, he appeared in the examination in October/November 2003 of Economics subject for the Xth Class. The result of the examination was not given on the internet. He again appeared in March/May 2004, the result of which was also not given on the internet on account of this the respondent wasted two years. He sent a letter to appellant but no response was given by the appellant. Consequently he filed the instant complaint before District Forum seeking compensation of Rs. 5,000 2. Vide impugned order dated 25.1.2005, the complaint was allowed as the appellant was found deficient in service and was directed to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 500 as cost of litigation. 3. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 4. The District Forum has referred to a letter written by the respondent in this regard which did not evoke any response. District Forum also referred to the permission of the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Limited grievance of the appellant against the impugned order dated 9.1.2008, is that the District Forum has not considered the terms and conditions mentioned on the jacket of the air ticket under the title Domestic Luggage Liability Limitation providing that the liability is limited to US D 2800 per passenger unless a higher value has been declared and additional charges paid and has only relied upon the affidavit of General Manager of the respondent to the effect that under Carriage by Air Act the liability limit is US D 20 per kg for checked baggage and US D 400 per passenger for unchecked baggage and the Airline baggage liability can be upto US D 1250 per passenger. 2. We have perused the impugned order closely and find that the District Forum has not at all referred to the terms and condition of the contract printed on the jacket of the ticket which is a concluded contract and has only accepted the affidavit of the respondent whereby the airlines ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Appellant was having LP gas connection of the gas manufactured by the respondent No. 2 and supplied by the respondent No. 1. Though initially there was complaint of leakage of gas from the cylinder which according to the respondent No. 1 was rectified but within three days there was violent explosion in the kitchen of the appellant resulting in fire due to leakage of the gas from the pipe as a result of which several kitchen appliances and other household goods were destroyed. On account of loss suffered by him, instant complaint seeking actual expenses of Rs. 87,200 and Rs. 1 lac as compensation and Rs. 15,000 as cost of litigation was filed by the appellant. 2. Vide impugned order dated 11.2.2005 passed by the District Forum the complaint was dismissed merely on the premise that on the perusal of the entries in the complaint register of the respondent No. 1 for the month of June, 2004 show that there were three complaints with regard to change of pip...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation of Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 5,000 as cost of litigation to be paid by the respondent for taking inordinate delay in installing new electricity connection, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. The case of the appellant was that he being a tenant in respect of property No. 2202, Chitli Qabar, Delhi from where he was carrying business of machinery part was having three phase connection and was making regular payment of electricity bill and subsequently he surrendered the three phase connection due to his old age and not being able to run the business and applied for single phase connection which was not sanctioned within the stipulated period of 60 days. 3. In our view the amount of compensation is reasonable. However, if the grievance of the appellant have not been redressed, he is at liberty to file fresh complaint before the District Form. However, limitation will not come in the way as the grievanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Though it is pleaded that it the appellant is not consumer qua the respondent as he has not availed the services of the respondent. He is now insisting that the respondent should provide water from whatever source it may arrange. However, the complaint of the appellant seeking direction to the respondent to re-bore the tube-well from where he had been getting water as the same had gone dry was dismissed vide impugned order dated 17.1.2008 by the District Forum. 2. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Allegations of the appellant leading to the impugned order, in brief, are that a tube-well (water pump) in Village Mahipal Pur Extension was installed in April 2003 by the respondent and the villagers were taking water therefrom. The said tube-well is out of order and the people of the said area are suffering from non-availability of water from this tube-well. Not only the appellant but many persons were facing problems and all the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. In spite of service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent. This petition is against the impugned order dated 15th April, 2008 passed by the District Forum whereby the application of the petitioner seeking an independent expert medical opinion was dismissed on the ground that jurisdiction of the District Forum cannot be used for creating evidence. The impugned order, on the face of it, suffers from inherent infirmity and illegality in consonance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We have also taken consistent view that wherever expert opinion, particularly, in the case of medical negligence is required, it is the duty of the District Forum to obtain such expert opinion to arrive at just and material decision. By not allowing the application on the premise that the District Forum cannot be used for creating evidence, the District Forum fell in grave error. Section 13(1)(c) of the C.P. Act which pert...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Respondent obtained medi-claim policy from the appellant which was effective from 10.7.2000 to 9.7.2001 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. On 22.10.2000 i.e. after three months, respondent felt some chest pain in his both arms, he was immediately taken to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital where angioplasty was carried out on left artery and stent was placed. He was discharged on 24.10.2000. Admittedly he incurred expenses of Rs. 1,34,148 and after discharge he filed the claim for reimbursement of the insurance amount. The claim was repudiated on the ground of concealment of factum of pre-existing disease for which he had taken treatment hardly 20 days before the taking of policy. Consequently he filed the instant complaint before District Forum. 2. Vide impugned order dated 7.1.2008, the District Forum held the repudiation of the claim as unjustified and without any basis. The District Forum allowed the complaint by giving following directions to the appellant: (i) To pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Main complaint of the appellant before District Forum against the respondent bank with whom he was having saving bank account and went for obtaining a draft of Rs. 70,000 was that the draft was not signed by two officers as prescribed by rules though he had also claimed Rs. 200 as penalty paid by him to the police for parking the scooter in the non-parking area and also missing of Rs. 10,000 from the dickey of the scooter. 2. However, vide impugned order dated 5.5.2004, the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum absolving the respondent bank from the charge of deficiency in service. Feeling aggrieved he has preferred the present appeal. 3. We have perused the impugned order and find that the draft in spite of having not been signed by two officers was duly encashed on the same day and as such the appellant did not suffer any loss on account of non-signing of the draft by two officers, which may be lack of due care but it did not cause loss to th...
Tag this Judgment!