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 10.2.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short District Forum), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed and the demand of Rs.69,540/- was quashed. 2. The facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant was having an NRS electric connection, bearing account No.AB01/0019X, which was installed in his shop where business of chemicals with the help of two employees was being carried on by him for earning his livelihood. The opposite party changed the meter in the last week of January, 2008 for the reasons best known to it. As per Rules, a spot report is required to be prepared to be signed by both the parties, but the same was not done in the present case. He did not receive any notice to visit ME Lab for testing of the meter. However, he received a bill dated 6.4.2008 in which the opposite pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Gurdev Singh, President: This complaint has been filed by Dr. Saroj Kumar Chawla for the issuance of following directions to the opposite party:- i) to pay damages to the tune of Rs.15 Lac for the deficiencies in construction material as well as damage to his belongings; ii) to pay damages to the tune of Rs.10 Lac for not covering the underground water tanks which is a continuous source of water pollution and health hazard to him and his family; iii) to refund an amount of Rs.4.38 Lac with interest @ 12% per annum which he had overcharged on the pretext of providing access to the flat from backside; iv) to refund Rs.62,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum which he had charged as service tax from him and for which he is not even giving receipt despite asking by him number of times; v) to pay damages to the tune of Rs.10 Lac for the physical and mental harassment suffered by him and his family; vi) to pay Rs.22,000/- as cost of litigation. He averred therein that the opposite party advert...
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Kalidas Mukherjee, President: This is a complaint case filed by the complainant alleging that he entered into an agreement dated 29/07/08 with the OPs for the purchase of flat being no.F, 2nd floor at premises no.67, P. Majumdar Road, Kolkata-700 078 measuring 1150 sq. ft. with car parking space at a consideration of Rs.24,50,000/- out of which Rs.13 lakh was paid. As per Clause-6.1 of Article VI of the agreement the OPs were supposed to complete the project within 24 months from the date of agreement. But the construction work has not yet been completed. The OPs have failed and neglected to complete the building, to deliver possession and to execute and register the deed of conveyance. For the said reasons, the complaint has been filed claiming compensation of Rs.9 lakh and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant has also prayed for a direction upon the OPs to complete the project, to obtain completion certificate and for registration of sale deed. The OP No.4/developer is con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
R.C. Chavan, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Central Mumbai whereby the District Forum partly allowed the complaint No.35/2008 before it and directed the opponent/Society to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards repairs of the tenement and Rs.5,000/- towards cost. 2. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under :- The complainant owned a flat No.6 on second floor of the building of the appellant/Society which accommodates twelve members. There was some open land adjacent to the building. M/s.Suraj Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.Suraj Developers in short) was to start some construction on the adjacent piece of land and for that construction activity; they had to utilize the open space of the appellant/Society. M/s.Suraj Developers had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.7,01,000/- towards usages of this open space. However, subsequently, M/s.Suraj Developers and the Society agreed that in lieu of payment of Rs.7,01,0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
(Smt. M. Shreesha, Incharge President) Aggrieved by the order of C.C.No.63/2009 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy District, the opposite parties preferred this appeal. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is the absolute owner of Unit No.D11-E/06/03 in VI floor, Block VISTA Diu 1 admeasuring 1380 sq. ft. along with undivided share of land admeasuring 56 sq. yds. situated at Raintree park in Sy.No.1009/1 (part) adjacent to Phase V, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-72 having purchased the same from opposite parties vide sale deed dated 27-4-2007. The complainant submitted that he paid Rs.2,75,646/- to the opposite parties towards advance booking on 13-3-2006 and on 06-4-2006, the opposite parties issued a letter informing the complainant the mode of payment and the complainant accordingly paid the payments to the opposite party. The complainant submitted that he agreed to purchase Car Parking but the same was not mentioned in the letter dated 06...
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 01.03.2012 in CC 28/2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Karimnagar. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to here under : 2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of 2 Guntas of Plot in Sy.No.518/2 of Kurikyala Village, Gangadhara Mandal, Karimnagar District issued by the Government by way of Patta bearing No. B/954/1999 on 05.04.2001 to her by the State government under the Family Planning programme and hence she erected a hut in the said land and residing there from then onwards. As she wanted to construct a pucca house she submitted an application to grant construction permission to opposite party no.1, but did not receive any intimation, therefore it was sent by registered post on 29.11.2010 but even then the opposite party no.1 neither granted permission nor rejected the sa...
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 7th November, 2012 in CC 41/2012 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Adilabad . For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to here under : 2. The brief facts of the complaint are that on 23.04.2012 at 23.00 hours one Bogula Pochamallu, who is the husband of the 1st complainant and son of the 2nd and 3rd complainants, died on the spot while charging his cell phone in his house due to electrocution of high tension power on account of improper maintenance of Ops. He is aged 28 years and hale and healthy at the time of his death and used to earn Rs.8000/- per month by doing coolie work as bread winner of the family and due to his sudden demise the entire family suffered a lot physically, mentally and monetarily. On a complaint, police of PS Kotapalli registered a case in Cr. No. 22/2012 U/s. 174 of Cr. P.C. The death of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (Smt. M. Shreesha, Member) 1) Dis-satisfied with the order in C.C. No. 61/2009 on the file of the Dist. Forum, Srikakulam, the complainants preferred FA No. 751/2012, while the opposite parties preferred FA No. 287/2012 against the very order. 2) Since both the appeals arise out of same C.D. the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint for felicity of expression and to avoid confusion. 3) The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant No. 1 is the wife and complainant Nos. 2 and 3 are children of late Dr. V. Bhujanga Rao. During his life time Dr. Bhujanga Rao by submitting Ex. B1 application form dt. 10.4.2006 had obtained FBS AIOS Membership by paying Rs. 30,000/- evidenced under receipt Ex. A3 dt. 10.4.2006 and that the opposite parties issued Ex. A7 certificate covering the complainants as beneficiaries under the Family Benefit Scheme of All India Ophthalmological Society from 10.4.2006. The complainants submit that Dr. Bhujanga Rao also pai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (Smt. M. Shreesha, Member) 1) Aggrieved by the order in CC No. 12/2013 on the file of Dist. Forum, Ranga Reddy, the complainant preferred this appeal. 2) The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant is a tenant of H.No. 1-12-71, Right Portion, Public Sector Colony, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad for which S.C. No. BZ-60133 was provided in the name of owner i.e., Md. Ikramullah. The complainant alleges that on 28.1.2012 the Assistant Engineer along with four others visited the premises at about 3.00 to 4.00 p.m. pulled the seal of the electricity meter and put the same in her bag and left the place. Later they informed that the meter was tampered and she has to pay Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 80,000/- for tampering the electricity meter. The complainant submits that the meter was sent to MRT lab for testing which revealed that the meter is functioning normally. The opposite parties lodged a complaint against her stating that she is running a hospital in H.No. 1-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
(This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 01.10.2013 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order:) J. Jayaram, Judicial Member This appeal is filed by the opposite parties against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Namakkal in C.C.69/2008, dated 22-02-2011, allowing the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant is that he deposited a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- with the 3rd opposite party, on 14-05-2005 and the maturity date is 14-05-2006 and after the maturity, the 3rd opposite party did not pay the amount, and this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint praying for direction to the opposite parties to pay the balance amount deposited deducting therefrom the loan amount of Rs.40,000/-, and interest at the rate of 24% and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards monetary loss a...
Tag this Judgment!