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, Kasargod in C.C. No. 164/09 in the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dated 24.1.2011. The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant. The complainant alleged in his complaint that he availed a loan from the opposite party and sanctioned a loan amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- on 23.3.2007. This amount was availed by the complainant on 31.3.2007. He was regularly paying the installment with interest. Later he enquired about the transfer of the said loan from the appellant to S.B.I, Kasargod branch. The State Bank of India was ready to take over the loan with the appellant, by closing the loan with the appellant. Accordingly as required by the S.B.I., the first opposite party issued a letter to the manager, SBI, Kasargod branch informing the amount to be remitted by the respondent for closing the loan accordingly. S.B.I. arranged a sum of Rs. 4,68,905/- for the purpose of cl...
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, Pathanamthitta in CC No. 67/08 order dated : 15.6.10. 2. The complainant is the appellant who prefers under the dismissal order of the complaint by the Forum below, respondents are the opposite parties. 3. The complainant insured his car with the opposite parties during the period between 20.3.08 to 19.3.09. On 25.3.08, the car met with an accident at Omalloor at around 5 am, and the same sustained huge damages. The matter was informed to the opposite party and to the Pathanamthitta police. The car was taken to Focuz Motors, Kozhencherry and the insurance surveyor came and assessed the damages. The GD entry and all other relevant records were handed over to the surveyor and he gave instruction to workshop authorities to repair the vehicle. After two days the opposite party intimated the workshop to stop the entire repair work for reasons unknown to the complainant. The complainant issued a letter on 26...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER The opposite parties in CC.314/09 before the CDRF, Kollam are the appellants herein who are aggrieved by the order dated:30th November 2010 wherein and whereby the Forum below allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to sanction the pension to the complainant adopting combined rounding of past service and actual service. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he has joined service on 24.6.1995 and started contributing to the Employees Pension Fund Scheme from 24.6.1995 and that he left the service on 23.6.2005. It is his case that though he has applied for pension as per the EPS 1995, the opposite parties rejected the claim stating that the complainant did not have 10 years qualifying service and disputing the said contention of the opposite parties the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to sanction the pension treating the service of the complainant as 10 years as he had 9 years and 10 m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
COMMON JUDGMENT SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeals are preferred from the order dated:29.5.2006 of the CDRF, Ernakulam in CC.614/05. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the side of the opposite parties in getting deposit of Rs.4,41,012/- by making the complainant to believe that the said deposit is towards the one time investment having the added benefits of insurance coverage, loan facility etc; that the complainant received a renewal premium notice dated:28.4.2005 from M/s Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd for effecting deposit of insurance premium; that the complainant came to understand that the deposit of Rs.4,41,012/- effected was not as one time investment. Hence the complainant filed the complaint in CC.614/05 to refund of the said sum of Rs.4,41,012/- with interest and cost of Rs.5000/-. 2. The 1st opposite party filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. It was contended that the payment of Rs.4,41...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The Revision Petitioner is the opposite party/HDFC Bank in I.A.151/11 in CC.203/11 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The Forum has directed the revision petitioner to issue cancellation of the hypothecation endorsement in the RC book of the vehicle for which a loan had been availed by the respondent/complainant. According to the complainant, the entire loan amount was paid consequent to the proceedings under the Securitization Act. It is in the above circumstances that the Forum has directed the opposite party/revision petitioner to release the endorsement with respect to hypothecation. 2. It is contended by the counsel for the revision petitioner, that the order has been issued exparte. It is the contention of the counsel for the revision petitioner that the respondent/complainant having other loans also the bank is having lien over the vehicle as per the agreement of the hypothecation. We find that no such contention is mentioned or the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Lucknow
1. Bhanwar Singh, President - Heard Sri Deepak Mehrotra, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Rajneesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite parties. Also perused the record. 2. This complaint has been filed by NOIDA Management System Private Limited against the opposite parties namely New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and. Industrial Development Commissioner, State of U.P. praying for a direction to the Chairman and Commissioner of the above mentioned authorities respectively to deliver factual possession of plot no.B-007, Sector 68Noida free from all encroachments or in the alternative to allot another site of the some size to the complainant. Further interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount deposited by the complainant has been claimed on the basis of plea that the complainant has not yet been able to derive advantage out of the allotted plot on account of encroachment over it. A compensation for Rs.10,00,000/- has further been asked for on account of the physical and men...
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 pay Rs.4 lakhs as compensation. 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.19.11.2009 in CC.No.01/2008. 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. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The respondent/ complainant had insured their vehicle, used for transporting the college students, bearing Regn. No.TN 28 A 6999, for the period covering 6.3.2005 to 5.3.2006. The bus used for transporting the students to Jalagandapuram, viz. TN 28 B 7999, on 11.7.2005, undergone repair, while negotiati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Typed to dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.820/2007 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is a retired engineer and he being attracted by the offer of opp.parties promising to pay maturity value for Bonds at high rate of interest he applied for allotment of bonds and the opposite party allotted the following bonds: a)IDBI Infrastructure Bond (99-A) 2 Nos. having distinctive no.0003424571 and 3424572, b) IDBI Flexi Bonds (1) Nos.2 having distinctive nos .0001031347-348 value for Rs.5,000/- each. c). IDBI Flexi Bonds (11) Nos. having distinctive nos.0002828974-976 face value of Rs.5000/- each . The complainant applied for four IDBI Flexi bonds (17) by paying the required amounts. Opp.parties instead of issuing certificate for four bonds issued three bonds having face value of Rs.5000/- each. The complainant addressed several letters ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (per Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.709/2008 on the file of District Forum-1, Hyderabad , the opp.parties 5 to 7 preferred F.A.No.543/2009 and Complainants preferred F.A.No.1033/2009 . As both these appeals arise out of a common complaint they are being disposed of by this common order. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the opposite parties 6 and 7 are in construction business i.e. construction of apartments in the name and style of Sri Vyshnavi Constructions and Developers i.e. opp.party no.5. Opp.parties 1 to 4 are the owners of property bearing municipal no.3-4-823/1 admeasuring 759 sq.yards situated at Barkatpura, Hyderabad (referred to as Schedule A property) and opp.parties 1 to 4 entered into a development agreement dt.2.8.2004 with opp.party no.5 rep. by opp.parties 6 and 7 for construction of apartment complex in the said place. Opp.parties 6 and 7 constructed an apartment complex in the said place consisting of 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER The order dated 14.9.09 of CDRF, Alappuzha in CC.101/01 is challenged in this appeal by the opposite party who is under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment with cost of Rs.1,000/-. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he had insured his oil mill and its goods with the opposite party for the period from 13.6.98 to 12.6.99 and that due to the strike of the employees, the copra kept in the oil mill got damaged and though he had filed claim for damages amounting to Rs.3,50,000/-, the opposite party repudiated the claim stating that the damage occurred in the insured premises would not fall within the purview of the policy. It was also submitted that the claim was a belated one and the complainant had not moved any police case regarding the strike of the workers and hence the opposite parties submitted that there was no defi...
Tag this Judgment!