Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. This RP is filed questioning the order of the Nizamabad District Forum in IA No. 53 of 1999 in CD No. 223 of 1998 dated 3.12.1999. That IA was filed by the petitioner in the RP, who was the petitioner in IA No. 53 of 1999 and opposite party in CD No. 223 of 1998, for permitting him to file his counter and contest the CD. The respondent in this RP is the complainant in CD No. 223 of 1998 and respondent in IA No. 53 of 1999. 2. In the affidavit in support of IA No. 53 of 1999 the petitioner sated as follows : That the above case was filed by the respondent/complainant against me. That the above case was posted to for filing counter of me, as I had not filed the counter, this Honble Forum forefeited my right to file the counter and posted the case for filing affidavit of the complainant. That on the said date of hearing I could not file the counter due to out of station and I had not instructed my Counsel to prepare the counter to the above case. That on the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) is directed against order dated 10.11.1997, passed by District Forum No.-III, in Complaint Case No. 43/97 entitled Shri P.C. Shirangannavar v. M/s. Anand Household Carriers and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, averring that the appellant had hired the services of respondent No. 1 for carrying his household goods from his residence, situated at Shalimar Bagh, Delhi to Borivili, Bombay, and had entrusted 32 packages, containing household goods, to respondent No. 1 for transportation from Shalimar Bagh, Delhi to Borivili, Bombay, on 15.9.1993. The abovesaid packages, as per the case of the appellant, could not be transported immediately and remained in the custody of r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. Since the above mentioned appeals, filed by the appellant named above, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) have common facts and also raise common questions for consideration, the same, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondents/authorised representatives of the respondents/learned Counsel for the respondents, have been heard together and are being disposed of finally by this common order. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeals, briefly stated, are that the appellant is a Company duly incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at A-4, Vijaypath, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, and a Branch Office at 709-Ansal Bhawan, 16-Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. In all the above mentioned appeals, the respondents had made deposited with the appellant. The deposits, so made by the respondents, with the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Mrs. Mamata Lakshmanna, Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties in C.D. No. 85 of 1997 before West Godavari District Forum far Eluru and the complainant in the CD is respondent before us. In its judgment District Forum asked the appellants to pay to the respondent/complainant, Jalasootram Peddalu Rs. 1,00,000/- with 18% interest from 21.3.1997 and also costs of Rs. 5,000/. The appellants are the Divisional Manager, Rajahmundry and the Branch Manager, Tadepalligudem of Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India. 2. The complainants son, Rambabu, took an Endowment Assurance policy, bearing No. 801414457 on 1.7.1994 from LICs Branch office at Kovuru and the complainant was nominee under the policy. Rambabu suddenly died on 21.2.1997 due to some heart disease at Sarada Nursing Home, Bhimavaram. The complainant immediately informed the opposite parties and submitted the necessary documents to the first appellant. After a number of represenations he was informed by the fir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. We do not find any ground for condoning the delay of 183 days/in presenting the appeal FA SR No. 1216 of 1999 by the unsuccessful complainant questioning the order of the Visakhapatnam District Forum in O.P. No. 56 of 1995 dated 7.10.1998 dismissing her complaint. The opposite party in the O.P. is the respondent in FA IA No. 95 of 2000 and FA SR No. 1216 of 1999. 2. The order of the District Forum was dispatched on 15.10.1998. The appeal was presented on 26.5.1999. The petitioner/appellant in her affidavit dated 29.11.1999 has not stated when she received the copy of the order. She only sought for condonation of delay without making out a sufficient cause. She stated as follows in that affidavit: I submit that on 7.10.1998 the District Forum, Visakhapatnam dismissed my complaint in O.P. No. 56 of 1995. The order copy was dispatched on 15.10.1998. At the time of filing of the complaint, I was stayed at Madras and doing BDS course. From August, 1998 I was s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against order dated 30.12.1999, passed by District Forum No. I in Complaint Case No. 1769/98 entitled Shri Ram Kishan Saini v. Delhi Vidyut Board (M.C.D.) Delhi. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated are that the respondent Shri Ram Kishan Saini, had filed a complaint in the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act, averring that there was no supply of electricity at his residence from 2.00 p.m. on 22.9.1998 till 25.9.1998. It was stated by the respondent in the complaint that the electric supply to his residence could be restored only in the evening on 25th September, 1998 and that too after a number of complaints in writing and contacting the senior officers of the appellant. The respondent, in the complaint, alleged deficiency in service on the part of the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. We do not find any merit in this appeal preferred by the opposite parties in CD. No. 655 of 1994 questioning the order of the Hyderabad District Forum-II therein dated 2.8.1999. The complainant in the CD. is respondent in the appeal. 2. At this outset we have to note that the complaint was presented on 31.3.1994 by the complainant aggrieved that his application for shifting his telephone bearing No. 553514 from Malakpet to Amberpet made on 30.6.1993 was not attended to by the appellants. After repeated approaches, in August, 1993 he was confronted by the requirement of producing the receipts showing that he paid all the bills due to the Telephone Department in respect of his telephone. It is not as if the appellants did not have ample time from 30th June, 1993 to August, 1993 to verify whether the complainant was in arrears. On the other hand it was stated in the counter affidavit dated 17.9.1998 of Sri K. Sudhakar filed before the District Forum as follo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. Since the abovementioned appeals, filed by the appellant named above, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have common facts and also raise common questions for consideration, the same with the consent of the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent/learned Counsel for the respondents have been heard together and are being disposed of finally by this common order. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the abovementioned appeals, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant is a non-banking Company, duly incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Officer at 151, Maker Chambers, III-Nariman Point, Mumbai and a Branch Office at 1102, Akash Deep Building, 26-A, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. In all the abovementioned appeals, the respondents had made deposits with the appellant. The deposits, so made by the respondents, with the appellant, were to carry intere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
S. Parvatha Rao, President: 1. These appeals are covered in favour of the appellant by our order in P.J. Credit Capital Limited v. Gudla Govind Rao, 1998 ALD (CONSUMER) 119. 2. The appeals have been preferred by the opposite party i.e. The Managing Director, A and S Textiles Limited in O.P. Nos. 470 of 1996 and 61 of 1997. The complainants in those two OPs, are sole respondents in these two appeals. The two OPs, were disposed of by a common order by the Nellore District Forum dated 8.3.1999. It is the case of the complainants that they applied for shares of the appellant on private placement basis and that they were allotted those shares but that they were not being paid any dividends and that the Company had not gone for public issue. The appellant objected that the Nellore District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints inasmuch as its registered office was in Tamil Nadu at Coimbatore and that no part of the cause of action took place within the territorial...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 15.12.1999, passed by District Forum (New Delhi) in Complaint Case No. T.C./2662/98 - entitled Sh. Ram Lal Sharma v. State Minister for Communication, Ministry of Communication, Govt. of India and Ors. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal lie in a narrow compass. The appellant Sh. Ram Lal Sharma had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act. The grievance of the appellant, in the complaint filed by him before the District Forum, was that Telegraphic Money Orders, Money Orders, Registered Letters, Letters and Telegrams, sent by him were delivered late/not delivered by the concerned postal authorities and the authorities of the Telegraph Department. 3. We have heard the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appea...
Tag this Judgment!