Court : Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
A.N. CHATURVEDI, President 1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 24.8.1993 passed by District Forum, Sahebganj in Case No. 9 of 1992 whereby the District Forum has directed the appellants, who were opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in the complaint case before the District Forum, to adjust Rs. 32,800/- with interest thereon towards the loan advanced to the complainants (respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in this appeal). There is further direction for adjustment of Rs. 10,000.00 awarded as compensation towards the loan advanced to the complainants. 2. It appears that the complainants (respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in this appeal) filed a complaint before the District Forum in July, 1992 alleging therein that they had been sanctioned loan by the State Bank of India, Sahebganj Branch for purchase of tractor, trailer, etc. for agricultural purposes and had deposited in the said Bank Rs. 33,900/- as margin money. The tractor was supplied to them. The said branch of the State Bank of India paid ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The case of the complainant, in the present complaint in brief, is that opposite party No. 1 is a builder of residential and commercial complexes in Delhi and opposite party No. 2 is the Chairman-cum Managing Director of opposite party No. 1. The complainant in response to an advertisement and exhibition held by opposite parties, booked a Residential Apartment/Flat in the Pushp Deep Apartment Scheme, at West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The complainant was duly allotted a residential flat No. A-1, First Floor, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi in the abovesaid scheme, by the opposite parties vide letter dated 11.10.1989. At the request of the complainant, the opposite parties reduced the price of the said apartment/flat and it was agreed mutually that the flat allotted to the complainant would be offered to him by the opposite parties at the revised cost of Rs. 7,38,000/-, which amount was to be paid in instalments by the complainant, as per the schedule fixed by the op...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the order of the District Forum-I dated 27.7.1999 in Complaint Case No. 1809/98 - entitled Shri Ghanshyam Bansal v. M.T.N.L. 2. The relevant facts, in brief are, that the respondent/complainant was the subscriber of telephone 7516791, installed at his residence. The above telephone of the respondent remained out of order from 1.10.1995 to 15.12.1995 and again from 25.5.1998 till 27.8.1998 and had been lying dead since 3.9.1998 till the filing of the complaint in the District Forum by the respondent. Despite repeated complaints and requests of the respondent in that regard, the appellant/MTNL failed to set right the telephone of the respondent. The respondent, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for directions to the appellant/MTNL to set aside the demand of Rs. 5,795.37 and Rs. 588.84 rais...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. Since the above mentioned 3 appeals are directed against a common order dated 2.3.2000, passed by District Forum-VII (Sheikh Sarai), in Complaint Case No. 426/99 entitled Shri Anand Prakash v. Shri B.B. Sharma and Anr., Complaint Case No. 427/1999 entitled Shri Anand Prakash v. Shri B.B. Sharma and Anr., and Complaint Case No. 323/1999 entitled Shri Anand Prakash v. Shri B.B. Sharma and Anr., the same are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the abovementioned three appeals, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant Shri Anand Prakash had filed three separate complaints before the District Forum, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), alleging that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 1.40 lacs, by way of loan, with Shri B.B. Sharma, Chairman, Hoffland Finance Limited, who gave him 100 Equity Shares of Indian Rayon Industries Limited; 100 Shares of India Petro-Che...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
A.N. Chaturvedi, President: 1. The case of the complainant is that his daughter Sushmita was married at Gaya on 21.11.1992. The members of the Barat party alongwith the daughter of the complainant were to return to Delhi by the morning of 23.11.1992 for ceremonies of the groom side. In view of this, the complainant on 29.10.1992 had purchased fifteen confirmed tickets with reservation for 22.11.1992 in Coach No. 53 of Shramjivi Express from Patna to Delhi. On 22.11.1992 Shramjivi Express entered Platform No. 1 at about 11 a.m. but Coach No. 53 was already occupied by some rally participants going to Delhi. The Barat party loaded their luggage in the said coach. He (complainant) tried to contact the Railway Authorities and the police who were at the said platform in numbers as by that very train Honble the Chief Justice of India was also travelling. Inspite of repeated requests to the police personnel and Railway Authorities they did not come to the rescue of the complainant and members...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed against the orders of the District Forum-I dated the 9th January, 1995, passed in Complaint Case No. 3186/93 entitled Smt. Santosh Kumari v. The Chairman, M/s. Ispat Alloys Ltd. and Ors. 2. In brief, the facts, relevant, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), stating therein that the appellant/complainant was the holder of 100 Part B secured fully Convertible Debentures of M/s. Ispat Alloys Limited (respondent) @ Rs. 160/- each. In the month of December, 1992, the appellant received a letter of option dated 24.12.1992 alongwith Consent Form, from the respondents for conveying her consent for conversion of Part B 14% Convertible Debentures either into non-convertible 14% secured Debentures or equity shares. The appellant, as per requirements, sent the said Consent Form alongwith 100 Part B Convertible Debentures to the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
A.N. Chaturvedi, President: 1. The case of the complainant Company M/s. Bajrang Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd. is that it carries on business of manufacturing Atta, Maida, Suji and Bran and its industrial unit is located at Village Teghra in the district of Begusarai. After the production of its finished products, it used to despatch the same to various destinations throughout the country and in order to cover the risk of transportation of consignment of finished products, it used to hire the services of General Insurance Company. On 6.8.1990 marine policy (cargo) (Annexure-1 to the complaint petition) of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rs. twenty five lacs) was obtained from New India Assurance Company Limited on payment of Rs. 5,564/- as premium. On 9.8.1990 a consignment of 111 bags of Maida (9,990 kgs.) worth Rs. 36,963/- was despatched by truck No. WBI 5893 of Maa Lakshmi Transport, Teghra, Begusarai to Calcutta for the consignee M/s. Lakshmi Narayan Durga Dutta vide Challan No. 8/A 1990-1991 dated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The complainant, named above, has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), averring therein that the complainant had purchased tickets from opposite party-1 covering the routes from Delhi-Bombay-Dubai-Muscat-Cairo-Lagos-Cairo-Muscat-Dubai-Delhi, of Gulf Airlines, on 26.10.1991 after paying a sum of Rs. 23,500/- for the same. It is the case of the complainant that he contacted the Egypt Airlines at Lagos, Nigeria on 30.10.1991 for confirmation of return journey from Lagos, but he was informed by the Egypt Airlines that the said tickets did not bear the stamp/seal of the issuing office at the required portion of the tickets and were probably stolen or fake and as such refused to confirm the reservation of the complainant for the return journey. The complainant contacted opposite party No. 1 as well as his own family through fax but despite the same opposite party No. 1 failed to send...
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 2nd June, 1995, passed by District Forum-I, in Complaint Case No. 1789/93, entitled Shri C.B. Aggarwal v. The Manager, Central Bank of India, Janakpuri, New Delhi. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum and, in that complaint, the main grievance of the appellant was regarding non-payment of proper interest by the respondent. It was stated by the appellant that in response to an advertisement given by the respondent in the press in April, 1992, regarding Stock Investment Scheme, the appellant visited the Janakpuri, New Delhi Branch of the respondent Bank and on 2.5.1992, opened a Savings Bank Account, for the purpose of obtaining Stock Investments under t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The appellant, abovenamed, has filed the present appeal against order of District Forum-IV, dated 14.7.1997, in Complaint Case No. 334/96 entitled Shri K.L. Singhal v. M.T.N.L. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the District Forum, averring therein that the telephone No. 516849 had been installed at his old residence at 11, Ram Nagar, Paharganj, New Delhi-110 055, since 1968. The said telephone number was changed to 522827 sometime in 1985. In November, 1991, the Idgah Exchange was converted into an electronic exchange and thereafter the telephone number of the appellant was again changed to 7524927. The said number after working for the appellant for four days only was further changed to 7524848 on 29.1.1992. Thereafter sometime in the last week of January, 1992, the appelalnt shifted his residence to 129, Bank Enclave, La...
Tag this Judgment!