Court : Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC
R.G. Desai, President: (1) This appeal is directed against the Order of the District Forum, Belgaum, is complaint No. 5/1989 on its file, dismissing the complaint of the appellants for compensation on account of negligence of the Respondent. It arises in this way: (2) On August 14, 1989 the Appellants boarded Kittur Express Train No. 208 at Belgaum Railway Station at 6.00 p.m. to go to Bangalore. The said train left Belgaum Railway Station at about 6.00 p.m. and reached Londa Railway Station at about 7.15 p.m., the same day. It was stopped there till about 11.00 p.m. as there was derailment due to an accident involving a goods train between Nagaragali and Tavaraghatta at about 2.34 p.m. on that day. The said train left Londa Railway Station at about 11.00 p.m. and it reached Nagaragali Railway Station at about 11.30 p.m. There it was stopped till about 5.45 a.m. and thereafter it proceeded towards Bangalore and reached Bangalore after a delay of about 6 hours. Due to the halting of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC
R.G. Desai, President: (1) The Complainant has filed this complaint against the Respondent alleging unfair trade practice by the Bank. The allegations in brief are as follows :- (2) The Complainant is the Managing Director of M/s. Linas Engineering Enterprises (P) Ltd., Mysore, a company registered under the Companies Act. The Complainant was one of the Guarantors to the loan borrowed by the company from the Canara Bank, Sara- swathipuram, Mysore. As on 1.10.1989 the liability of the Company to the Bank was Rs. 1,90,510/- exclusive of interest. The Complainant borrowed a some of Rs. 75,000/- from the Canara Bank, Saraswathipuram, Mysore, on a mortgage by deposit of title deeds of site No.789, 4th Stage, Thonachikoppal, Mysore. (3) The Complainant discharged this loan on 27.8.1989 by paying Rs. 50,647.05 by taking an advance from the prospective buyer of his house and requested the Bank to release the title deeds. The Bank informed the complainant that the title deeds would not be relea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
G.G. Loney, President: (1) Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat (All India Consumer Panchayat), Sangli, in short, Panchayat, and one Mr. Ilahi Attar jointly filed this complaint against the Opponent Life Insurance Corporation of India, for short, the Corporation, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the provisions of Sub-sections (a) (g) (e) and (r) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant Mr. nahi has claimed an amount of Rs. 3,67,000/- as compensation from the Corporation on account of his suffering due to deficiency in service at the instance of Corporation. (2) The grievances levelled by the complainant Panchayat against the Corporation are general in nature and are as under: (i) unilateral, abnormal and detrimental changes made in the Surrender Value of the Policies; (ii) incorrect calculations of bonus; (iii) discrimination between two sets of customer in the matter of calculation of bonus and premium etc. (iv) odious attitude and c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Prithvi Raj, President: (1) Since common questions of law are involved in these two complaints, they are being disposed of by a single judgment. The complaints have been filed on the allegations that the complainants on the dates mentioned in the complaints advanced amounts mentioned in the complaints to one Shri Prem Parkash Gupta, R/o 66, Model Basti, New Delhi against the units issued by the Unit Trust of India (hereinafter called the Trust) belonging to him and also to his clients with transfer deeds over which Shri Gupta stated to have complete ownership, with full powers to pledge or sell the same at his will and discretion. The unit certificates were given as security for the loan advanced by them to Shri Prem Parkash Gupta who defaulted in the repayment of the loans advanced to him. The complainants approached the Unit Trust of India to verify the genuinness of the units pledged as security to the complainants, when news in the press appeared of shady dealings of the said Shri ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC
R.G. Desai, President: (1) After hearing the Appellant's Counsel and perusing the records, the Commission (per Desai, J.) delivered the following: (2) This appeal is directed against the Order dated 9.2.1990 passed by the District Forum, Belgaum in Complaint No. 3/1989 on its file. It arises in this way: (3) The Respondent herein had purchased Orson 20''colour TV for a sum of Rs. ll,850/- on 9.12.1988 from the Appellant. Some time after the purchase the colour TV started malfunctioning and it was exhibiting black and white picture, quality of which was poor. The Respondent brought the said facts to the notice of the Appellant who went to the house of the Respondent but could not rectify the defect. As the repeated requests of the Respondent did not yield any result, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Belgaum. The appellant registered the complaint by contending inter alia that he had sent his technician to the house of the Respondent but the Respondent did not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
S.S. Sandhawalia, President: (1) Whether the supply of electrical energy is a hiring of services, or a purchase of goods, by a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? Whether a contesting respondent in an appeal under Section 15 of the aforesaid Act can prefer and maintain cross-objections against the same? These are the two somewhat ticklish questions arising for adjudication in this set of two connected appeals (First Appeal Nos. 16 and 18 of 1990) preferred by the Haryana State Electricity Board. (2) Learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that the issues of fact and of law in both these appeals are similar, if not identical, and as such these are being disposed of by this common order. (3) The facts that now deserve notice in the context of the two questions aforesaid lie in a narrow compass. Bishan Sarup and Dinesh Kumar, respondents in the two appeals, are father and son, respectively, and apparently are running industrial units in the same or adjoining premises at H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Prithvi Raj, President: (1) The petitioner who is a partner of M/s. Tayal Plastic Industries filed a complaint against the respondent alleging that M/s. Tayal Plastic Industries (hereafter called the industry) was granted a licence of 28 H.P. by the respondent in the year 1985 for running a plastic industry against the power connection No. K-6047 A- 2 granted in the name of the industry. The appellant approached the respondent in June 1987 for regularisation of the said power connection in the name of the industry and also for releasing the additional load sanctioned by the respondent. The grievance of the complainant is that at the time of regularisation of the said connection, the respondent imposed penalty retrospectively in the sum of Rs. 11,147.50 for the period 18.4.1980 to March 1989 which could not be done as the respondent cannot bill a consumer for accumulated arrears for more than six months. The appellant further contends that in May, 1983 the respondent had taken a decisio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Prithvi Raj, President: (1) This appeal has been filed against the order dated 17.1.90 passed by the learned District Forum, Delhi. (2) Relevant facts of the case are as under : Smt. Usha Rani who is the owner of property No. 74 Sunder Nagar, Delhi, filed complaint before the District Forum alleging that the first floor of the building was let out to M/s. Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd. (hereafter called the Company) specifically for residential purposes but the Company was unlawfully using the premises for office and commercial purposes thereby using power far in excess of the sanctioned load after unlawfully creating power points; that on account of misuser a fire broke out at the Electric Distribution Boards of the premises on 27.5.88 and that all the Power Metres of the first floor and all circuits of the ground floor were burnt out. The appellant contends that because of the misuser the DESU should have cut of the electric supply of the Company by taking the aid of Schedule VI(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
B.L. Anand, Member: (1) This complaint has been filed by Smt. Sushila Devi w/o Sh. Baldev Raj R/o KD-41 C Ashok Vihar Phase-1, DDA M.I.G. Flats, Delhi-52 against M/s Raj Sudha Towers (P) Ltd., Connaught Place, New Delhi and Sh. Rajinder Jaina S/o Sh. Tek Chand, Chairman-cum-Managing Director of M/s. Raj Sudha Towers-respondents. (2) Brief facts of the case are that the respondents had claimed and represented that they were owners of plot No. 28, Ashok Vihar Phase-1, Delhi and that they were builders and were going to construct the building known as "Rajindra's Terpanth Market" on the above said plot. The respondents offered space No. RTM-19, located on the basement floor of the said building having an area of 72 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per sq. ft. of the super area. That on the representation made by the respondents one Sh. D.N. Sharma S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan Sharma R/o B-4/48, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-52, agreed to purchase the said space having an area of 72 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Dr. (Mrs.) Avtar Pennathur, Member: (1) This is an appeal against order dated 5.12.89 passed by the learned District Forum. (2) The grievance of the appellant is that District Forum had assumed jurisdiction in entertaining the claim of the respondent although it had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. Further, it is contended that if the question of jurisdiction be decided against them the District Forum went wrong in awarding amounts much in excess of the claims of the respondent. Since the respondent had opted for being admitted to and availing the delivery facilities as a paid patient her claim was liable to be rejected. (3) Case of the respondent is that the complainant was registered for Tubecutomy operation under Family Welfare Scheme of the Government of India. She received an incentive of Rs. 145/- and as her sterilization operation was performed under the Family Welfare Scheme, she was entitled to these services free of cost from the hospital. (4) She could not be charged ...
Tag this Judgment!