Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party No.1 against the order dated 7.10.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short District Forum), vide which the complaint filed by respondents No.1 and 2/complainants was allowed and opposite party No.1 was directed to pay Rs.2,000/- each to the complainants for non-delivery of letters, despatched by the Punjab School Education Board (in short P.S.E.B.) opposite party No.2, in time. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainants, Sh.Kashmir Singh and Sarwan Singh, appeared in 10th Class examination in March, 2009 and the former got compartment in Mathematics and Science while the later got compartment in Mathematics and Social Studies. In order to re-appear in the exam to be conducted by the P.S.E.B., they deposited the requisite fee with opposite party No.2. Roll numbers, in respect of exams to be held, were despatched by opposite party No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 19.10.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala (in short District Forum), vide which the complaint of the respondent/complainant was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to credit Rs.8,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. They were further burdened with the consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. 2. The facts of the case, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant was having a saving bank account No.55029562595 with opposite party No.2. On 1.1.2011, she intended to withdraw an amount of Rs.8,000/- from her account and, as such, at about 12:15 AM, after checking the credit balance in her account vide transaction No.907, she tried to withdraw this amount from her account through her ATM card but the said transaction remained unsuccessful. She again tried t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
J. Bag, Ld. Member: Both the appeals arise out of the same impugned order dated 21.09.2012 in the same Consumer Case No. 21/2012, whereby Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur, allowed the complaint ( in part ) exparte against OP No.1 and dismissed on contest against OP No.2. The complaint case , in brief, was as follows: The Complainant being the owner of the vehicle No. WB-32/A/9495 obtained an insurance policy for a sum of Rs.6,24,849/- . The policy was valid from 02.09.2009 to midnight on 01.09.2010 . The insurance certificate was issued from the Kolkata Branch of the insurance company i.e. United India Insurance Company Ltd . On 22.07.2010 at about5.15 pm ,the vehicle, while returning from Satragachi to Contai within the District of Purba Medinipore collided with a TATA Sumo vehicle bearing No. WB 025/7544 resulting in full damage of the vehicle and by such accident all passengers including the driver, namely, Ram Pada Maity were seriously injured. Three ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. The brief facts as seen from the complaint are that on 28.2.2006 the appellant applied for the Dwelling Unit of the scheme launched by the respondent. On 10.05.20067 the respondents allotted Type A dwelling unit admeasuring 637 sq.feet after receiving the initial amount of Rs.25,000/- on 27.02.2006. The appellant paid Rs.6,76,000/- as on 3.11.2010 towards part payment of sale consideration. In total the appellant paid Rs.7,01,000/- to the respondents towards part payment of sale consideration. As per the terms, the balance amount has to be made in instalments. 2. As per the terms and conditions of the brochure, the construction work has to be completed within 30 months from the date of allotment i.e. from 5.10.2006. Even after lapse of five years, the project was not yet completed. The appellant in need of financial assistance for the treatment of cardiac problem and rheumatoid arthritis for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The complainant is the revision petitioner in R.P.No.57 of 2013 and the opposite party filed R.P.No.59 of 2013. The parties referred to as they are arrayed in the complaint. 2. The District Forum allowed the complaint in C.C.No.23 of 2012 and passed the following order: In the result, the complaint is allowed in part holding that the opposite party alone cannot be held responsible for the whole delay and the opposite party is liable to pay 50% of the claim upto 29.02.2012 and entire period from 01.03.2012 to 06.06.2012 (3 months). The opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,55,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty five thousand only) (Rs.30,000 x 8 = 2,55,000) with interest at 12% from the date of complaint, till the date of payment. The opposite party is also liable to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards deficiency of service. At any rate the opposite party is directed to deliver the vehicle within 7 (Seven...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This order will dispose of the two (2) appeals i.e. F.A. No.1811 of 2010 (Krishan Kumar Vs Bathinda Improvement Trust) and F.A. No.1812 of 2010 (Gurdass Garg and Anr. Vs Bathinda Improvement Trust) as the questions of law and facts involved in both the appeals are similar and both the appeals are directed against the similar orders dated 20.08.2010 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short the District Forum). Facts are taken from F.A. No.1811 of 2010 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal. 2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Krishan Kumar, appellant/ complainant (In short the appellant) filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) against the respondent/opposite party (hereinafter called as the respondent), asserting that he is original allottee/owner of Plot No.6 in 1.36 Acre Scheme, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda of the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa (in short District Forum), vide which his complaint was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant obtained a three phase electric connection, bearing account No.B74-BP410193K, for running his Atta Chakki (Flour Mill). It was his only source of income for his livelihood and he had been paying the electricity bills regularly. The meter of said electric connection suddenly got burnt on 24.8.2010 and the matter was brought to the notice of opposite party in writing by him through letter dated 25.8.2010. He deposited Rs.685/- vide receipt No.95 on the same day for the replacement of the burnt meter with a new one, but till the time of filing the complaint, it did not bother to replace the same. After the burning of the meter, bill dated 30.9.2010 was issued wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Mridula Roy, Member: This order will govern both the Revision Petition being Nos. RP/187/2012 and RP/18/2013 since both the revision petitions are filed in connection with the complaint case being No. CC/36/2012 pending before Ld. District Forum, North 24 Pgs. In RP/187/2012 the Revision Petitioner challenged the impugned order being No. 14 dated 19.09.2012. In RP/18/2013 the Revision Petitioner challenged the impugned orders being Nos. 21, 22 and 23 dated 07.12.2012, 01.01.2013 and 16.01.2013. The case of the Complainants, in brief, is that they are the owners of the property in question by way of purchase of the different flats from the O.Ps and now in the possession of their respective flats and also got registration of Deed of Conveyance of the respective flats in favour of them. The flat owners Complainants alleged deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps for not providing the facilities as per terms of the respective Agreement for Sale entered into between the parties with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Kalidas Mukherjee, President: This is a petition of complaint filed by the complainant on the ground of medical negligence against the OPs claiming of Rs.56,04,552/- for alleged wrong operation of Total Hip Replacement (L) of the husband of the complainant which includes Rs.11,04,552/- for the expenditure so far incurred for the treatment of her husband from the date of Total Hip Replacement operation; Rs.27 lakh for the loss of earning due to premature termination of service due to disability in wrong operation; Rs.10 lakh for damages for loss of normal life and Rs.8 lakh for mental agony of the complainant and their only daughter. The complainant has also prayed for a direction upon the OPs to pay to the complainant Rs.40,14,000/- tentatively as penal damages for revision surgery at Vienna as advised by Dr. N. B. Sen Chaudhuri. The case of the complainant, in short, is that her husband Mr. Prabir Kumar Das while on duty as Executive Engineer, 24-Parganas (South), Zilla Parishad at Ga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Narendra Kawde Member: 1.Complainant is a medium scale undertaking Company. It has filed this consumer complaint through its Director Shri Rahul S. Modi, alleging deficiency of service against the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Opponent Insurance Company in short) in not settling the claim payable under the Insurance policy on account of fire that damaged Diesel Generator Set (hereinafter referred to as DG set in short) of the Complainant. Salient features giving rise to file this consumer complaint are that the Complainant availed Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy No.020100/11/01/02561 issued by Opponent Insurance Company. Validity period of the policy was commencing from 8th March, 2002 to the midnight of 7th March, 2003. Sum insured under the policy is Rs.5,65,00,000/- covering twofold insurance, viz. (i) on building and such other structures Rs.80,00,000/- and (ii) on machineries, accessories and such other machineries of every description Rs....
Tag this Judgment!