Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Heard Ms.Sumedha Sawant-Advocate for the revision petitionerand Mr.S.H.Yadav-Advocate for respondent. Mr.Yadav files vakalatnama, which is taken on record.This revision petition is directed as against the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur in an Execution application no.140/2011, which has arisen from the consumer complaint no.523/2007. Respondent had filed consumer complaint no.523/2007. Said complaint was allowed and, therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed in the consumer complaint, original opponent/Union of Bank of India had preferred Appeal no.190/2009 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. State Commission has decided the said appeal by order dated 13/04/2010. Appeal was allowed and the impugned order passed in consumer complaint was quashed and set aside subject to payment of cost of `10,000/- payable by the appellant to the respondent. Complaint was remitted back with a direction to take the document...
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
S. Coari, Ld. Member: 1. The present Appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dt. 30.9.10 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II, in Case No. CDF/Unit-II/C.C.No. 405 of 2009 wherein the Ld. District Forum dismissed the petition of complaint on contest without any order as to cost. 2. The case of the Appellant/Complainant before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that on 21.10.08 the complainant being accompanied by his wife was returning from Varanasi by availing 2334-Dn Bibhuti Express. The complainant was the bonafide passenger having purchased valid tickets for the journey. According to the complainant, after boarding the train the complainant put his suitcase containing valuables including SBI ATM card belonging to his wife with the help of an iron chain underneath the berth occupied by them. It was the further case of the complainant that in the following morning it came to the notice of the complainant that the suitcase containing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Prabir Kumar Samanta, President: 1. Both sides are present through their Ld. Advocates. This complaint has been filed by the Complainant, Government of Tripura by alleging that for the purpose of holding Panchyat Election in the state of Tripura, Government of Tripura had placed orders for supplying 280 reams of pink colour papers with the specification as mentioned in the letter dated 01.07.2009 for printing of ballot papers with the O.Ps namely M/s. Pannalall Seal and Sons. It has been alleged by the Complainant that the O.Ps failed to supply such papers with required specification. As a result of which the papers supplied by the O.Ps could not be used for preparation of the ballot papers for the said election and the Complainant, Government of Tripura had to procure papers with required specification from other suppliers for holding the said Panchyat Election. Because of such deficiency it has been alleged in the complaint petition that the Complainant, Government of Tripura had to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is filed by the complainants in C.C. 314/2009 of C.D.R.F. Kottayam who are aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint by the Forum below vide order dated 25.2.2011. The case of the complainants is that the second petitioner is conducting a tyre re- trading shop in the name and style SKV Tyres. The first petitioner is his son. It is alleged that the 3rd opposite party asked for a bribe of Rs. 5,000/- and when the same was not paid a bill for Rs. 1,20,697/- was given on 15.10.2009 stating that in the inspection conducted on 13.10.09 there were some discrepancies in the premises of the complainant. It is submitted by the complainant that the officials of the opposite party forcibly obtained certain signed blank papers also from the first petitioner and inorder to avoid disconnection , they have paid Rs. 50,000/- Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to cancel the bill for Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
1. This appeal is pertaining to 2004 and it was pending in this Commission for last 6-7 years. On 26/07/2011 this appeal was placed before us. On that date, we have directed the office to issue notices to both the parties and accordingly notices were sent to both the parties on 16/08/2011, but both parties are absent. Hence, we decide to dispose of the appeal on perusal of appeal memo and other documents placed on record. 2. This is an appeal filed by org. opponent No.2 against the judgement and award passed on 30/06/2001 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur in consumer complaint No.174/2001. By allowing the complaint of Shri Shrikant Ramchandra Joshirao against the Credit Society/org. opponent No.1 and against the Directors of the said Credit Society including the appellant, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed the org. opponent Nos.1to 7 jointly and severally to refund an amount of `1,50,000/- with interest @ 14.5% p.a. from 05/04/2000 till the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying a direction to the opposite party to refund the foreclosure charges, alongwith compensation of Rs.9,79,000/- alongwith cost. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.10.12.2007 in CC.No.41/2007. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 06.09.2011. 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 complainant, in CC.No.41/2007, on the file of District Forum, Trichy, aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, since his complaint was dismissed, filed this appeal, alongwith consumer protection council. 2. The complainant had approached the opposite party bank, for a housing loan of Rs.14 la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.97504/- with 12% interest, alongwith compensation of Rs.25000/- and cost of Rs.5000/-. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.04.02.2010 in CC.No.8/2003.This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 06.09.2011. 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 unsuccessful complainant, is the appellant. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the case are: The complainant had taken mediclaim policy, from the opposite party not only for himself, but also for his family members, covering the period 2.11.2001 to 1.11.2002, assuring for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,13,958.96/- alongwith compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.06.09.2010 in CC.No.622/2006. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 05.09.2011. 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 complainant having failed by filing a complaint before the District Forum, has come before us as appellant, for redressal. 2. The facts necessary, for the disposal of the case (in brief): The complainant having supplied chemicals to the 2nd opposite party, from the year 2001, having running account, th...
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 appal preferred by Andhra Bank against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to credit Rs. 50,000/- to the S.B. account of the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a., together with compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and costs of Rs. 500/-. 2) The case of the complainant in brief is that she deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 1 lakh in her S.B. account with Op2 branch as she was receiving amounts from her relations from Gulf countries. Later she came to learn that one Mr. B. Jaya Raju, Clerk-cum-Cashier misappropriated the amounts. On verification of her account she fund that the amounts were not entered into the account or ledger of the bank. On complaint the police registered it as a case in Crime No. 228/2007 u/s 409 and 420 IPC pending trial. When she demanded refund of the amount the appellant did not pay. She gave legal notice for which the appellant bank gave reply. Alleging deficiency in service she filed t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is filed by the opposite parties in C.C. 32/10 before the C.D.R.F. Wayanad who is aggrieved by the order dated 29.7.2010 wherein and whereby the Forum below has directed them to close the accounts of the complainant on receipt of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased a Goods Autorikshaw under finance from the first opposite party for a amount of Rs. 1,14,000/- on the agreement that the same with interest shall be repaid within 47 months @ Rs. 3,760/- per month. The complainant has stated that though he has paid 14 monthly installments, the Autorikshaw was seized by the opposite parties for realization of the amount due from him. It is also his case that the opposite parties were threatening him for realization of huge amounts as he had given some blank papers and signed cheques to the opposite parties. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the complaint was...
Tag this Judgment!