Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. The opposite parties in C.D. No. 1500/2000 on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad are the appellants. The complainants made certain deposits with Sikkim Bank Limited on various dates during 1998-99. The said Sikkim Bank was amalgamated with the appellants Bank. The total deposits exceeding Rs. 1 lakh are due to the complainants. However, the appellants paid only a sum of Rs. 1 lakh leaving a balance of Rs. 55,234/- . Hence, the complaint. 2. In the written version filed by the complainants it is stated that under the scheme framed as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India all the deposits of the complainants were merged and the total amount payable to the complainants was only Rs. 1 lakh which was already paid. Hence there is no deficiency in service. 3. The District Forum on consideration of the material on record directed the appellants to calculate the amounts due by emerging the deposits showing the first complainant as the first deposi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
C.P. Suresh, Member: 1. The un-successful opposite parties in C.D. No. 202/1997 on the file of the District Forum, Warangal are the appellants. 2. The facts in brief are that the complainant is having a telephone bearing No. 73785 and as he did not get the bill in time, he approached the first opposite party and obtained a duplicate bill for Rs. 301/- under which he had to pay Rs. 291/- up to 23.6.1997, thereafter, the bill amount with penalty. On 23.7.1997, he went to the opposite party and stood in the queue up to 12.30 noon but since the counter was closed he could not make the payment. On the following day, he went and paid the bill amount; when he returned home by about 2.30 p.m. he found that his phone was disconnected by the opposite parties without verifying whether the bill amount in question was paid or not. 3. He contacted the first opposite party by phone and he was asked to pay another sum of Rs. 105/- towards re-connection charges, which, he paid. The disconnection had ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
C.P. Suresh, Member: 1. The un-successful complainant is the appellant before this Commission. 2. The facts in brief are the opposite party invited fixed deposits from the public while giving an assurance to repay the same along with interest thereon within the stipulated period. The complainant deposited Rs. 30,000/- on 7.11.1996 in Fixed Deposit Receipt repayable with interest at 21% per annum by 7.11.1997. The opposite party issued 12 cheques of Rs. 500/- each towards interest. Out of them only ten cheques were encashed and the remaining were bounced. The opposite party issued a cheque Ex. A-3 for Rs. 30,000/-. Exs. A-4 and A-5 are the cheques for Rs. 500/- each issued in favour of the complainant. All the three cheques were bounced for want of sufficient funds. 3. The District Forum observed that the complainant should approach appropriate Court of law under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The proposition advanced by the District Forum is an untenable proposition. ...
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 18.2.2003, passed by District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. OC/1012/2002entitled Shri Dowarka Nath Lohtia v. M/s. I.T.C. Limited and Another. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant Shri Dowarka Nath Lohtia had filed a complaint before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act. In the complaint, filed by the appellant, before the District Forum, the grievance of the appellant, in nut shell, was with regard to non-payment of interest for the delayed redemption payment in respect of redeemable bonds, floated by the respondent No. 1 under Folio No. SL 380 and SL 340. Alleging deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents, it was prayed by the a...
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 21.2.2003, passed by District Forum (Central), Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 843/2002 entitled Shri Ashok Kumar Garg v. M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant Shri Ashok Kumar Garg had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the appellant had obtained a Mediclaim Policy from the respondent for Rs. 1,50,000/- for the period from 21.10.2001 to 20.10.2002. In the complaint, filed by the appellant, it was stated that in the proposal form, submitted by the appellant, at the time of taking the policy in question, the appellant had mentioned that the appellant got replaced and transplanted his v...
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 19.2.2003, passed by District Forum-III, Janak Puri, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 650/2002entitled Shri S.P. Sachdeva v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The appellant Shri S.P. Sachdeva had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. In the complaint, filed by the appellant, the appellant had prayed that directions be issued to the respondent to refund an amount of Rs. 6,670/- together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. In all, the appellant had claimed a sum of Rs. 20,170/- to be paid to him by the respondent. The claim of the appellant in the District Forum was resisted by the respondent. The learned District Forum vide...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed assailing the order of District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, dated 17.5.2001, passed by District Forum, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. OC/788/98, entitled Shri C.M. Mathew v. Senior Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent 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 his new Maruti Standard car 1997 model bearing Registration No. DL-6-CD-2820 had been stolen on 24.2.1998 while the same was parked duly locked in front of his quarter. An FIR had been lodged with regard to the same and the police had, after due investigations, submitted an untraced report on 24.3.1998. The said car was duly insured with the appellant for a sum of Rs. 2,02,688/- vide Policy No. 311402019488 for the period from 27.8.1997 to 26.8.1998. After the theft of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The complainant Messrs. Anand Auto Corporation (India), through its attorney, Shri Tarlok Singh Anand have filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) averring that the complainant is a partnership firm, duly registered with the Registrar of Firms. It is stated that Shri Tarlok Singh Anand has been appointed as attorney of the complainant to sign, verify and institute the present complaint and to pursue the same on behalf of the complainant before this Commission. It is stated that the complainant is having an account with the Punjab and Sind Bank, Kashmere Gate, Delhi (opposite party No. 2). It is stated that the complainant was availing of credit facility from opposite party No. 2 (for short O.P. No. 2) against the pledge of the stock in trade. It is stated that as per the requirements of O.P. No. 2 the complainant had taken a policy in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- from O.P. No. 1...
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 9.1.2003, passed by District Forum, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. OC/654/2001 entitled Shri Darshan Lal Jain v. Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly, stated, are that the appellant Shri Darshan Lal Jain had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that he had booked two vehicles for his ailing wife who was bed ridden and had made payment for the same to the respondent. It was stated that later on he advised the respondent that order for one vehicle may be cancelled and the amount be refunded to him. It was stated that later on again he wrote to the respondent to refund the amount of both the vehicles as his ailing wife, for whom he had booked the vehicles had expired in between. T...
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 3.2.2003, passed by District Forum (Central), Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1613/2001 entitled United Children Movements (Regd.) v. The Post Master, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned appeal briefly stated are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act averring therein that he had sent a copy of the biography of Shri K.R. Narayanan by VPP to Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan, Thiruvananthapuram Kendra vide receipt No. KB/VP-196/2001 dated 28.4.2000 through Karol Bagh Post Office, New Delhi. It was stated that the appellant was to receive Rs. 800/-, the price of that book sent by him through VPP to Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan, Thiruvananthapuram Kendra which had not been received by him from ...
Tag this Judgment!