Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
R.C. Chavan, President: 1.This complaint filed by a company doing business in shares and securities makes out a grievance that opponent/Insurance Company did not honour its commitments under the policy of insurance taken out by the complainant. 2.The complainant had obtained Insurance Policy named Trading Member Indemnity Policy which was exclusively made for trading members of the National Stock Exchange (NSE) for indemnifying the insured for loss sustained in action in good faith upon written instructions or advices from the clients in respect of securities which are counterfeit, forged, fraudulently altered or lost or stolen. This Insurance Policy bearing No.120000/48/97/001 bearing Certificate No.97/677 was issued by the opponent for a period from 01/06/1996 to 31/05/1997. The complainants client Mridula Securities had sold shares in the regular course of business which were returned by the NSE with declaration that the endorsement was forged. Out of these shares 1700 shares of Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order : (T. Ashok Kumar, Member) 1. This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant as against the orders dated 13.09.2013 in CC 1051/2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum III, Hyderabad. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under : 2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant who is a practicing advocate is having a pre-paid connection with Mobile No. 9848284738 for life time validity with opposite parties since long time. He left for US on 14.4.2011 and returned to India On 6.7.2011. On return from USA he tried to call his relatives and friends but services to his Mobile phone aforesaid were temporarily disconnected when he contacted the customer care centre of the opposite party personally he was informed that his phone number was released in the market and promised to get the same activated within one week but it was not so activated. Therefore he got issued a legal notice calling upon the OP to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Applicant-appellant-opposite party(in short the appellant) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 21.1.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana(hereinafter called the District Forum) in consumer complaint No. 390 of 9.5.2012 vide which the complaint was dismissed. 2. Alongwith the appeal there is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 56 days in filing the appeal. It has been stated that the impugned order was passed on 21.1.2013 and its copy was received on 6.2.2013. But before the whole record alongwith the certified copy of the order could be sent to the appellant counsel for preparing the appeal, the same was mis-placed in the office of the appellant. The officials of the appellant tried to locate the same and found lying in some other case file on 19.4.2013. Thereafter, the case file was sent to the appellant counsel for preparing the appeal, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Kalidas Mukherjee, President: This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I in CDF Case No.136 of 2007 allowing the complaint and directing the OP to refund the sum of Rs.24,000/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. from 26/09/06 till the date of realization. The OP was further directed to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainants within 45 days from the date of communication of the order in default the amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a. over the total amount till realisation. The case of the complainant/respondent, in short, is that the OPs arranged a package tour to Germany, Austria, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Netherlands and Great Britain. The brochure was supplied to the complainants. The complainants availed themselves of the tour on payment of necessary charges. It has been alleged by the complainants that they paid extra charges of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
(Smt. M. Shreesha, I/C. President) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.84/2005 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy District, the complainants preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants approached the opposite party hospital for treatment of their aged father for his illness as outpatient and were allotted OP No.20030600024 on 23-6-2003 and their father was advised to undergo necessary tests on the same day and on consecutive day also. The complainants submit that several tests like x-ray, Endoscopy, Ultrasonography, abdomen (male) Radiologist, diagnosis tests, CT Abdomen, Rectal I.V.Contrast, Gastroentrology (colonoscopy) etc., The complainant submitted that on 25th June, 2003, he discussed with opposite party No.3 but opposite party No.3 could not arrive any conclusion regarding the patients real problem even after conducting several tests in past 2 days. The complainant submitted that opposite party No.3 assured that there is no s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
(M. Shreesha, Incharge President) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.593/2009 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad, opposite party No.1 preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant i.e. Dr.MCR Human Resources Development Institute, a Government institute with Chief Minister as the Chairperson of the Board of Governors and Director General as its C.E.O., The institute had contacted M/s Probes Consulting for provision of Tata sky connections to the Godavari Guest House where most of the VIP Guests of the institute stay and the above company on behalf of M/s Tata sky requested a formal order and a formal order was issued by the institute. The complainant submitted that as per the website of Tata sky, the company provides 3 add on connections to one main connection and as per its order, 16 rooms got to be provided with this facility at Godavari Guest House but the companys agent, M/s Probes consulting instead provided 16 main connections a...
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/opposite party against the order dated 5.3.2010, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short District Forum), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and opposite party was directed to pay to the complainant the maturity amount alongwith interest at the rate at which the said amount deposited by her would have got the maturity value of Rs.50,000/- as on September 1, 2011. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the opposite party floated a scheme inviting applications for purchase of IDBI Deep Discount Bond-96 (in short the Bond) from the public at large. The complainant also applied and paid Rs.5,300/- for the issuance of the said Bond which were payable after a period of 25 years with a maturity amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The application was accepted and the Bond, having folio No.FDDB 1567304, Certificate No.01630966, was issued on 18....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. Dissatisfied with the relief granted by the District Forum, the complainant has filed the appeal. The case of the appellant filed complaint with the averments that after going through the brochure and advertisement issued by the respondent-company she entered into agreement with the respondent to purchase a plot admeasuring 250 sq.yards in Golden Heights, Phase-II situated at Ravalkol Village, Medchal Mandal R.R. District for consideration of Rs.3,75,000/-. The appellant submitted that the respondent assured her that it would develop the venture within one year and the appellant could construct house in the plot. The appellant paid and amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on and Rs.31,518/- + Rs.1,675/- on 23.04.2005 an a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 10.05.2006. The appellant paid a sum of Rs.65,000/- towards registration charges on 09.10.2009 and the respondent-company executed sale deed on 30.03.2010 in respect of the plot bearing number 132 and not in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Smt. Balwinder Kaur, appellant/complainant (In short the appellant) has filed this appeal against the order dated 28.01.2010 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (in short the District Forum). 2. Facts in brief are that the appellant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) against the respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter called as the respondents), making the averments that her son namely Narinjan Singh was insured with the respondents vide policy No.471192571 dated 28.11.2002 and he was depositing the premiums regularly with the respondents till 29.11.2005. He was insured for a sum of Rs.1.50 lacs. The son of the appellant died on 01.12.2005 due to the injuries suffered in an accident. Prior to his death, he was hale and hearty. He did not take any medical treatment from any doctor or hospital, nor remained admitted anywhere. The respondents w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member: 1.This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 04/11/2010 passed by District Forum, South Mumbai in consumer complaint No.391/2006. 2.The facts leading to file this appeal can be summarized as under :- The complainant had purchased a vehicle bearing No.MH-04-BW-3549 by taking loan from the ICICI Bank. The complainant had taken insurance for said vehicle vide policy bearing No.112200/00031/2004/ 349 for a period 22/12/2003 to 21/12/2004. Said vehicle met with an accident at Kabbina Sevethu, Dist. Chikmanglur, State of Karnataka and accordingly, F.I.R. was registered. The complainant informed the incident to opponent No.1/Insurance Company on 14/05/2004 and filed insurance claim on 26/06/2004. As the complainant has not submitted papers as per requirements of the opponent No.1, the claim as filed was closed on 30/09/2004. Again, the complainant requested the opponent No.1/Insurance Company for reopening the file. The file was reopened and again, the file wa...
Tag this Judgment!