Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
S.R. Khanzode, Judicial Member 1. This appeal is against the dismissal order of the consumer complaint filed by the original Complainant Society. The impugned order is dated 08/09/2010 passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Bandra (the Forum in short) in Consumer Complaint No.372 of 2003, Sumer Nagar No.3 Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Mr. Bipin S. Barot and Others. 2. Referring to the complaint, a grievance is tried to be placed by the Appellant/original Complainant, namely Sumer Nagar No.3 Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Society) to the effect that services of the Respondent No.1/original Opponent No.1, namely Mr. Bipin S. Barot and the Respondent No.2/original Opponent No.2, namely M/s. Manoj Paresh Consultants, as an architect and surveyor, were engaged by the Respondent No.3/original Opponent No.3, namely M/s. Sumer Developments, who is a builder and developer (hereinafter referred to as the Builder) to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in O.P. No. 757/03 order dated 10.3.2005. The complainant is the appellant and the respondent is the opposite party in the above O.P. respectively. The appellant/complainant prefers this appeal from the dismissal order of the complainant by the Forum below. In the case of the complainant is that the complainant has decided to construct a new residential building consisting of two floors. The construction was with the financial assistance of the Federal Bank ltd. Puthencruz branch. In the first phase of the construction of the building the ground floor was completed on 10.11.2001. After the completion of the ground floor that portion was insured with the opposite party by the bank for a period of 25.4.2002 to 24.4.2003. The sum assured was Rs. 3,00,000/- The first Floor work was started on 2.5.2002. The concreting of the first floor roof was on 2.6.2002. On 7.6.2002 early morning, the resid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
COMMON JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant in Appeal.406/06 is the 1st opposite party hospital and the appellant in Appeal 424/06 is the 2nd opposite party, Director cum Head of the unit and the appellant in Appeal.489/06 is the 3rd opposite party doctor in OP.111/2000 in the file of CDRF, Wayanadu. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation with interest at 9% from 17.4.2006 and cost of Rs.3000/-. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he is working as an A/C Mechanic at Qatarfrom 1988 onwards. While working he was hit in the eye by a flying piece of nail. Initially he was treated at Dr.Susans Clinic, Doha. He was advised to undergo further treatment and surgery. He returned to India for the above purpose as the treatment at Qatar was very expensive. He arrived at Calicut on 8.9.99 and got treated at the 1st opposite party hospital. After examination he was told that there is only a wound in the eye and he underwent tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The order dated : 30.5.11 of CDRF, Idukki in CC No. 46/11 is assailed in this appeal by the opposite party who is aggrieved by the directions of the Forum below to return the original title deed of the complainant in respect of 56 cents of land belonging to the complainant and to pay Rs. 2,000/- as cost of the petition within 15 days of receipt of a copy of the order, failing with the opposite party is under further direction to pay 12% interest per annum from the date of default. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he had availed a loan of Rs.90,000/- from the opposite party bank in the year 1990 and that he has repaid an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as principal and interest towards the loan. It is the case of the complainant that inspite of paying the amount the opposite party demanded further payments from the complainant and hence he approached the State Farmers Debt Relief Commission in the year 2007 and by the order dated: 25....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties the doctor and the hospital respectively in OP.169/04 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.40000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost. 2. The complainants are the mother aged 55 and her daughter. It is the case that on 5.2.04 the 1st complainant/mother was taken to the 2nd opposite party hospital for a removal of fish bone stuck in her throat. It is stated that the 1st opposite party ENT Surgeon after examination found that there is no fishbone and discharged the patient on the next day with advice to come for review after 8 days. Due to severe pain and inflammation in throat after 4 days 1st complainant was again taken to 2nd opposite partys hospital on 10.2.04 and was admitted. On the next day she conducted the procedure of oesophagoscopy under general anaesthesia and the fishbone was removed. She was an inpatient therein upto 15.2.04 on which date she was r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service with respect to the agreements for purchase of flats from the opposite parties. 2. It is the case the complainant that altogether he has paid a sum of Rs.11,00,300/- for the flat in Big Apple Apartment flat complex proposed to be constructed by the opposite parties. It was the cost of the flat depletes by the opposite parties. It was agreed to hand over the flat after construction on 23.11.08. So far, the agreement has not been complied with. The complainant has also paid a sum of Rs.3,36,408/- towards a studio apartment in Apple Suit Project. It was agreed to hand over the flat on 30.6.10. The complainant has complied with all the conditions of the agreement. So far the flat has not been hand over. 3. The opposite parties stood ex-parte. 4. The complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.P1 to P12 documents were marked. 5. We find that the complainant has produced the payment receipts and the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to issue family card, and to pay RS.1 lakh as compensation alongwith cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.17.12.2009 in CC.No.93/2008. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 14.09.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order: M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. This appeal is targeted against the order of the District Forum dt.17.12.2009, in CC.No.93/2008, on the file of District Forum, Theni, wherein certain directions were issued, as well as compensation was ordered against the opposite parties, based upon the alleged deficiency. 2. The respondent/ complainant a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
ORAL ORDER: (Per Honble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President) 1) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant. 2) The case of the complainant in brief is that the respondents started a project by name Rajiv Internet Centre (herein after called RIC) at various places on BOP (build, own and operate) model wherein R1 was consortium partner entered into a contract on 31.8.2005 whereby he became entitled for maintenance of KIOSK at RAJiv at Koutala of Adilabad District. He responded to it by enclosing a demand draft for Rs. 1,000/- towards application fee. On 16.6.2006 R1 directed him to pay license as well as franchise fee of Rs. 1,25,000/- which he had paid. On 5.8.2006 on receipt of amount by R1 franchise agreement dt. 11.10.2006 was executed. As per the agreement R1 shall provide, set up, install, commission and maintain the KIOSKS equipment viz., desk top, dot matrix printer, UPS, scanner, barcode reader, smart card reader, and credit card swipe terminal etc., and to provide training in managem...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
ORAL ORDER: (Per Honble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President) 1) This is an appeal preferred by the complainant aggrieved by the order of the Dist. Forum directing her to withdraw the amount deposited by the insurance company towards full satisfaction besides awarding costs of Rs. 2,000/- denying the benefits covered under the policies. 2) The case of the complainant in brief is that her husband late Mylabathula Bullabbai worked as A.A.O in respondent insurance corporation and died on 20.5.2001. During his life time, he took three policies for Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 35,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- and on their maturity she was entitled to receive as nominee. Without assigning any reason she was denied the amounts. On that she got issued a lawyer notice for which no reply was came to be issued. Therefore she sought Rs. 1,70,264/- towards maturity value of the policies together with interest @ 24% p.a., besides Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and costs. 3) The respondent insurance company resisted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER It is aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated 11.10.10 of CDRF, Kasargod in CC.28/08 that the 1st opposite party in the above said complaint has come up in appeal calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order of the Forum below. By the impugned order the appellant is under directions to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.14000/- being the purchase cost of the RSL with cost of Rs.3000/- within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint till payment is also liable to be paid to the complainant. 2. The complainant had approached the Forum stating that he had purchased a road speed limiter from the 2nd opposite party which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party and that it was fitted in the stage carriage vehicle owned by him and it became defective due to manufacturing defect. It was also his case that even tho...
Tag this Judgment!