Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Rumnita Mittal, Presiding Member: 1. The present appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 4.6.1997 passed by the District Forum, Janak Puri, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 372/97 entitled Smt. Damyanti v. Life Insurance Corporation of India. The relevant facts for the disposal of the present appeal, in brief, are that the respondent along with her husband had obtained a joint Life Insurance policy from the appellant for a sum of Rs. 53,000/- plus bonus w.e.f. 28.12.1988. Thereafter, said policy was renewed every year, on payment of the requisite premium. The husband of the respondent Sh. Braham Dutt Sharma expired on 19.8.1991. Accordingly, the respondent filed her claim for the sum assured under the policy together with all the benefits. However, the claim of the respondent was repudiated by the appellant vide letter dated 31.3.1993 on the ground that the deceased assured had suppressed material facts relating to his health at the time of obtaining the policy. The respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
C.D. No. 21 of 1999: P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. The complainants are owners of 806.94 sq. yards comprising of Plot Nos. 326/HIG and 327/HIG situated at Kukatpally Housing Board Colony, Ranga Reddy District. They entered into an agreement with the opposite party builder who accordingly agreed to construct a residential complex called Gandhi Towers and deliver 28% of the constructed area to the complainants within a period of 19 months from the date of execution of the agreement and in case of failure to complete the construction within the said period, he would pay the rent during that period. Though the complainants waited for a sufficiently long period after expiry of 19 months, construction of the complex was not completed by the opposite party. Hence the complainants issued a legal notice dated 7.2.1997 and filed this complaint claiming in all a sum of Rs. 8,77,500/- towards damages. 2. In the counter filed by the opposite party while denying the material allegations, it is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
C.D. 37/99: P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President: 1. The complainant is the proprietrix of a poultry farm which contains grower sheds, layer sheds, poultry birds both layers and growers. She insured 12,500 birds under policy bearing No. 4761080000927 on 3.2.1998 till the age of 72 weeks for the birds. The birds are Layers Bovans. 2. According to the policy conditions, no claim can be made during the waiting period from 3.2.1998 to 17.2.1998 and thereafter the liability of the company is to indemnify the complainant to an extent of 80 per cent of the value of the birds if death occurs during the period of coverage. 3. While so the birds were healthy upto 24th week and during 25th week i.e., between 8.3.1998 and 14.3.1998, 480 birds died. The same was informed to the opposite party. Again during the next week i.e., from 15.3.1998 to 21.3.1998, 2717 birds and from 22.3.1998 to 28.3.1998, 497 birds died, on all the occasions due to fowl cholera and the opposite party was informed on all occasio...
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 18.7.2002, passed by District Forum (Central), Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 306/2002 entitled Shri S.P. Jain v. M/s. Uday Tours and Travels (P) Ltd. 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 therein that the poster paper of the appellant entitled Prevention of damage to continuous centrifugar screen was accepted for presentation at the Congress in Colombia by International Society of Sugar Cane Technologies (XXII Congress, Cartagena, ColombiaSeptember, 1995). It was stated that the Sugar Technologists Association of India had appointed the respondent as official travel agents for making arrangements for ...
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 20.12.2002 passed by District Forum, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. OC/844/2001 entitled Shri Bishan Seth v. The Chief Post Master, GPO, Parliament Street, New Delhi. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Shri Bishan Seth had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that he, in his capacity as Karta of Bishan Seth HUF, had purchased National Savings Certificates VIIIth issue (for short the Certificates) on 17.12.1994 for Rs. 50,000/- under registration No. 45279 of even date. It was stated in the complaint, filed by the respondent, before the District Forum that when he presented the above Certificates for encashment after the date of maturity, the payment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Rumnita Mittal, Member: 1. This order shall govern the disposal of application dated 25.8.2000 filed by the appellant/applicant along with the above mentioned appeal for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The brief facts, relevant for the disposal of the present application are, that the complaint, filed by the respondent Shri Daljeet Singh under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the District Forum was decided vide order dated 4.5.2000, whereby the said complaint filed by the respondent was allowed with the directions to the appellant to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 63,988/- together with interest @ 12% from the date of reporting the loss i.e. 10.8.1998 till the date of payment, as well as Rs. 2,500/- as cost of litigation. 2. The appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid order has filed the present appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. On 30.5.2003 it was prayed by the learned Counse...
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 1.5.2003 passed by District Forum (Central) Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal I.S.B.T., Kashmere Gate, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 83/2003 entitled Shri Vivek Mittal v. Bank of Baroda. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent Shri Vivek Mittal, in his capacity as Proprietor of M/s. Jaypee Corporation, R-15, Reeta Block, Hemraj Shopping Centre, Shakarpur, Delhi had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the respondent was having a Current Account, bearing No. 1833 in the appellant Bank (erstwhile the Banaras State Bank Limited). It was stated that the respondent had deposited a cheque, bearing No. 0118645 dated 31.7.2000 for Rs. 70,564/-, drawn on State Bank of India, Jhansi Branc...
Tag this Judgment!