Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
J. Bag, Ld. Member: The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 08.10.12 of the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit- 1 , Kolkata , CDF/Unit-I / Case No. 37/2011 whereby Ld. Forum below allowed the complaint against OPs with cost. The complaint case, in brief, was as follows: The Complainant Sri Sanjoy Jaiswal being the owner of a two-wheeler vehicle bearing the registration mark WB-01Y/0952 took an insurance policy from the OP insurance company namely, IFCO Tokiyo General Insurance Company Ltd. w.e.f 20.03.2008 to midnight of 20.03.2009 with yearly premium for Rs. 887/- over the risk coverage of the said vehicle valued at Rs. 33,000/- (Thirty three thousand ) only . The vehicle was damaged by fire on 14.03.2009 when it was parked in the factory premises of the Complainant at 114, Princep street, Dyna market, Kolkata . The incident of damage was intimated to the OP insurance company and claim was lodged. The local Police Station was informed on 18.03.2009 and 19.03.20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (S. Bhujanga Rao, Member) The unsuccessful complainant filed this appeal against the order of the District Forum, Rangareddy made in C.C.No.26/2012 which was filed by the complainant, seeking direction to the opp.parties to pay a sum of Rs.39,800/- towards the cost of appliances, to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards damages for mental agony and to pay costs. The case of the complainant, as set out in the complaint, in brief, is as follows: The complainant is the tenant of the house bearing H.No.3-1-5/9, Lakshmi Nagar, Attapur, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, R.R.Dist. and on 16.8.2011 at about 9 a.m. there was fluctuations in the electric supply and due to that reason, the electrical appliances such as TV, HI-FI and Fridge etc. were burnt and became dis-functional. Along with the complainant, some other residents of the same area also faced the same problem. The complainant and other residents of the same area gave complaint to the opposite party no.1, who informed that the fluctuati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao,Incharge President) 1. The opposite party no.2 is the appellant. The respondent no.1 is having savings bank account No.1467810100002449 with the respondent no.2 as also he was provided with ATM card. On 11.8.2009 when the respondent no.1 attempted to withdraw the amount of Rs.15,000/- from the ATM, it had shown that he had already withdrawn the amount of Rs.15,000/- and he complained about the same to the appellant. No action was taken by the appellant in the matter. The respondent no.1 got issued notice dated 8.10.2009 to the appellant and the respondent no.2 and filed the complaint before the District Forum. 2. The appellant resisted the case contending that the respondent no.1 is the SB Account holder of the appellant bank with ATM Card facility. On 11.8.2009 the respondent no.1 instructed for withdrawal of Rs.15,000/- at 20.07 WDL and cash was taken at 20:07:40 and 20:40:41. The appellant had issued statement with regard to the transaction. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite party no.1 is the appellant. The appeal is challenge to the order of the District Forum whereby the District Forum has directed the appellant and the respondent no.2 and 3 to lay pakka drain and road in front of the complainant is house within 3 months and to prevent entering of drain water into the house of the complainant. They had been further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- towards compensation along with costs of Rs.1500/-. 2. The case of the first respondent is that he obtained permission from the appellant and constructed house at Tekkali and he made several representations to the appellant to lay drainage canal for clearance of drain water and water accumulated due to rain. He has got issued notice through his advocate to the appellant and the respondents on 3.01.2010 and thereafter filed the complaint. 3. The appellant has contended that the first respondent purchased Ac.0.02gts of land in the year,1985 by which time the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Incharge President) 1. Both appeals arise from the same order passed by the District Forum. The complainant has filed appeal, F.A.No. 707 of 2013 claiming more compensation than what was awarded by the District Forum and the opposite party-bank has preferred appeal, F.A.No. 3 of 2013 impugning the order. For the sake of felicity of expression, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the complaint. 2. The complainant availed agricultural gold loan, an amount of Rs.6,000/- from the opposite party-bank on 15.12.2003 by pledging his gold ornaments weighing 28.800 gms. The complainant submitted that due to drought prevailed at the relevant period, he could not discharge the loan and even after the debt waive scheme is introduced by the Central Government , he approached the opposite party-bank on 14.11.2007 to discharge the loan and the opposite party informed him that it sold the pledged gold items in auction and after adjusting the amount t...
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. On 20.12.2010 the appellant purchased a Mahindra two wheeler from the respondent no.1 for Rs.51,500/- with a warranty of 4 years or covering distance of 40,000 kms whichever is earlier. Within two months of its purchase, the vehicle started posing problems relating to shock absorber, oil leakage, battery leakage, colour fade, mileage etc. On 15.11.2011 the appellant handed over the vehicle to the respondent no.1 workshop for repairs and after repairs it ws delivered to the appellant on 24.11.2011 and the problems posed by him still persisted. The appellant again handed over the vehicle on 25.11.2011 which was delivered back to him on 26.11.2011 by changing the engine without the knowledge of the appellant. The respondent no.1 did not issue the owners identification certificate and fitness certificate of the vehicle. On verification of the owners manual the appellant noticed the vehicle was s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 are the appellants. The brief averments of the complaint are that the respondent no.1 insured the car bearing No.AP-28-V-5901 with the respondent no.2 under policy No.4175052/31/11/001560 and valid from 3.5.2010 to 4.5.20111. The vehicle met with an accident on 14.5.2010 when the driver of the vehicle proceeding from Kagaznagar towards Asifabad resulting which the vehicle was completely damaged. A case was registered by the Police Asifabad. The appellants appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs.1,14,000/- and did not settle the claim. 2. The appellants and the respondent no.2 resisted the case contending that the respondent no.1 did not produce the fitness certificate when asked by the surveyor vide letters dated 6.10.2010 and 29.9.2011 and subsequently the appellants closed file and informed the same by their letter dated 25.10.2010. The appellants have appointed the surveyor and as per the motor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao,Incharge President) 1. The opposite party is the appellant. The respondent is having savings bank account with the appellant as also he was provided with ATM card facility. On 31.10.2011 the respondent withdrew Rs.15,000/- from ATM and when the respondent again attempted to withdraw the amount of Rs.10,000/- from the ATM, it had shown that he had already crossed the limit and the transaction could not be processed. After repeated attempts he was successful in withdrawing Rs.5,000/-. The balance in his account was shown as Rs.39,925/- out of the total balance of Rs.64,925/-. The respondent made representation to the appellant. The appellant informed that somebody on his behalf might have withdrawn the amount of Rs.20,000/-. When the respondent insisted for showing the photograph image the appellant informed that the details of the transaction no.5075 was not available. The respondent addressed letter to the Banking Ombudsman and as he was unsuccessfu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The revision petitioner is 3rd party to the proceedings before the District Forum. The revision is challenge to the order of the District Forum dated 3.01.2013 restraining her from making payment of Rs.2,50,000/- to the first respondent/opposite party. 2. The second respondent filed compliant in C.C.No. 54 of 2011 against the respondent no.1 claiming refund of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and the District Forum allowed the complaint on 25.08.2009 awarding refund of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @9% p.a. and a sum of Rs.25,000/-towards compensation. As the first respondent had not preferred appeal, the order of the District Forum became final. 3. The second respondent filed execution petition in E.A.No. 10 of 2012 on 25.04.2012 under the provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act for prosecution of the first respondent on account of non-compliance of the order of the District Forum. The District Forum stated to had ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. This is a revision preferred by the proposed opposite party no.3 against the order of the District Forum dismissing the petition holding that fact whether the petitioner purchased the Flat in the name of the first respondent can be decided only in civil court. 2. The case of the first respondent /complainant in brief is that she entered into Agreement of sale for purchase of Flat No.306 with the respondent no.2 who is the landlord of the property bearing door no.1-8-678/20 situate at Azamabad locality of Hyderabad city and the respondent no.2 entered into Development Agreement with the respondent no.3 for development of the property and construction of residential complex, Gharonda Chamundesari Complex therein. She submitted that she paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs.12,80,000/- to the second respondent and the third respondent abandoned construction of the Flat whereon she filed the complaint seeking dir...
Tag this Judgment!