Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
mrs. silpi majumder, member: 1. this appeal has been directed against the judgment passed by the learned district forum, siliguri, on 26.7.2010, in its case no. 112/s/2009, where by the learned district forum allowing the complaint on contest in part against the op with cost of rs. l,000 has directed the op to pay a sum of rs. 38,950 together with hiring charges of rs. 135 totalling to rs. 39,120 to the complainant within a period of 45 days and the learned forum below was pleased to award compensation in favour of the complainant to the tune of rs. 5,000 payable by the op and the forum has directed to pay the abovementioned total amount within 45 days from the date of passing of the judgment, failing which the awarded sum would carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of institution of the instant case dated 29.12.2009 till realization of the entire awarded amount. 2. the brief fact of the case of the complainant is that he used to deal with high quality imported vegetables and other seeds. the op is engaged in carrying documents and seeds parcel from siliguri to several parts of the country. the op is governed by indian carriage act and all the provisions of the carriage are applicable in addition to other laws of the loss as applicable from time-to-time. the complainant booked a parcel containing 4.5 kgs. of imported hybrid vegetables seed for safe transportation and delivery within three days to the consignee namely assam beej bhandar, bazar road, ward no. 9, north .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
s. coari, ld. member 1. the present petition of complaint has been filed by the complainants namely mr. suraj ratan mundra and mr. kailash mundra, the two brothers, against the op, vivekananda construction company, thereby praying for a direction upon the ops to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants in respect of the flat purchased by the complainants from the op for valuable consideration along with a further direction to pay compensation to the tune of rs. 20,00,000/- for mental agony, rs. 4,00,000/- for enhancement of registration fee and stamp duty along with litigation cost to the tune of rs. 20,000/-. 2. the case of the complainants, in brief, is that the complainants being desirous of purchasing a self-contained flat paid rs. 7,85,300/- being the consideration money in respect of the flat to the op/construction company. according to the complainants, after payment of the entire consideration money in 1998 the op issued possession letter in respect of the flat in favour of the complainants on 24.4.99 and assured the complainants about the registration of the deed of conveyance within a very short period of time. it is the further case of the complainants that they in due course of time took possession of the flat and out of their own motion obtained electricity connection and mutated their names under kolkata municipal corporation for the purpose. as the op delayed and denied to execute and register the deed of conveyance in favour of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
kalidas mukherjee, president, j. this appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by learned district forum, howrah in case no.43 of 2011 allowing the complaint and directing the op no.1 to pay compensation of rs.4 lakhs for prolonged mental agony; a compensation of rs.3 lakhs for prolonged harassment and torcher perpetrated upon the complainant by op no.1; compensation of rs.2 lakhs for lowering down the social status and prestige of the complainant in the esteem of others by overt acts of the op no.1; compensation of rs.1 lakh for causing illegal and overt acts violating the principle of natural justice by op no.1 and the litigation cost of rs.10,000/- the op no.1 was directed to pay the total amount of rs.10,10,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of passing the order failing which the sum shall carry interest @ 18% per annum till realization. the case of the complainant/respondent, in short, is that he took a vehicle loan to the tune of rs.4,57,690/- with 35 emis @ rs.18,270/- each. on 27/03/11 the op no.2 with the help of local hooligans took away the vehicle from the possession of the complainant forcibly. the total period of repayment of the said amount of money was fixed till 10th january, 2013, but the ops forcibly snatched away the vehicle from the possession of the complainant. for the said reason, the complaint was filed before the learned district forum. the appellant filed a w.v. before the learned district forum contending, inter .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
debasis bhattacharya, member: this appeal is directed against the order dated 30.08.2012 passed in case no. 36a/2010 by the ld. district forum, unit-ii kolkata. by the impugned order, the ld. district forum has dismissed the said complaint case without cost. being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the complainant thereof has preferred this appeal. by the petition of complaint, it has been made out that it is proprietorship firm. proprietor, sukdeb mustafi, a dealer of medicine, and for smooth running of the business, he obtained cash credit facility from the op no. 4 for an amount of rs. 6,00,000/- (rupees six lakhs) by hypothecation of stock of business , and also obtained one insurance policy from the op national insurance co. ltd being no. 150/07/48/04/980-1085 for the period from 21.03.2005 to 20.03.2006 and the policy risk covered was stocks, furniture and fixtures to the extent of rs. 8,00,000/- ( rupees eight lakhs).during the policy period, an incident of dacoity took place in the godown of the complainant by snatching of the keys of the godown at gun point, which was informed to the local p.s. vide g.d.d. no. 1685 dated 29.07.2005 and also a criminal proceeding bearing no. c/928/2005 was started in the ld. court of the cjm, krishnanagar, and the ld. court took cognizance of the offences and issued process against the accused persons, namely, partha mustafi, benu dutta and sujit sarkar, which is still pending. the complainant intimated the incident of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
kalidas mukherjee, president. it is a complaint case filed by the complainant praying for compensation to the tune of rs.54 lakh on the ground of medical negligence and deficiency in service. the factual matrix of the case may be summarized as follows. on 25/02/08 chitralekha bhattacharjee, since deceased, was of 68 years of age and got herself admitted in op no.1 having suffered fracture in her right hip after falling down. she was under the treatment of op no.3 dr. r. hom choudhuri. she was diagnosed comminuted subtrochanteric (right) fracture and was advised surgery. for such surgery no informed consent was obtained by the op no.3 from the complainant. she was not explained the advantage and disadvantage of surgery. the complainant was successfully operated on february 29, 2008 when the internal fixation with pin plate was done for subtrochanteric fracture, neck of femur right, under spinal anesthesia with c-arm control and cardiac monitoring. the operation was conducted by op no.3. after being successfully operated the complainant was shifted to her cabin and was advised complete bed rest. the complainant was advised to remain in the hospital for post-operative treatment and care for at least a period of 10 days. in the days following the surgery the complainant felt extreme pain and discomfort in her backside arising out of bed sore. the complainant immediately informed the nursing home staff and medical personnel including op no.3. but they did not pay any heed to such .....
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, barasat, north 24-parganas in cc 21 of 2013 allowing the complaint with cost of rs.5,000/- and the ops were directed to deliver 14,000 bricks as per delivery order dated 17/07/12 in favour of the complainant within one month from the date of order. the ops were directed to pay sum of rs.10,000/- as compensation, rs.5,000/- as punitive damages within the period of one month from the date of order failing which the ops will have to pay monthly interest @ rs.2,000/- over the said amount till full satisfaction. in case of failure on the part of the ops to deliver bricks, they were directed to refund the deposited amount with 10% interest within one month from the date of order. the case of the complainant/respondent, in short, is that he wanted to construct dwelling house over his purchased landed property and, accordingly, he needed good quality of bricks. he applied before the office of the op no.1 to supply 7,000 special class bricks and 7,000 a class bricks to the construction site of jonepur, kanchrapara, district-north 24-parganas. after booking of the said bricks the op sanctioned the same and intimated the complainant to deposit full amount of rs.53,032/- with the office of the op no.1 for the delivery of said bricks. accordingly, the complainant paid the full amount of rs.53,032/- to the op no.1 through demand draft bearing no.169819 dated 10/07/12 drawn .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
debasis bhattacharya, member: being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.08.2012, delivered by the ld. district forum, siliguri, in case no. 64/s/2011, the complainant thereof has preferred this appeal. by the impugned judgment, the ld. district forum has dismissed the case on contest, but without cost. the case of the complainant is that he purchased one chevrolet travera motor vehicle on 08.09.2005, which was insured with the op no.2 for a sum assured of rs.6,10,000/- (rupees six lakhs ten thousand) for the period from 31.12.2006 to 30.12.2007, vide policy no. 313207/31/2007/3831 and the vehicle was hypothecated to the op no.3. while the complainant was on tour in the north east with his said vehicle and driver, and returning from senaparti, manipur after visiting his friend, they reached a petrol pump, namely, faithful services, 5th mile, dimapur, nagaland, at about 1.40 a.m. on 06.04.2007 for taking petrol. at that time, three unknown persons came there on a scooter and suddenly started beating them mercilessly and they forcibly snatched the key of the vehicle from the driver and ran away with the vehicle along with the relevant papers of the vehicle and cash of rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) in a handbag, for which he lodged an f.i.r., being no. 31/07, u/s 392/34, i.p.c., under g.d.e. no. 76/07 dated 06.04.2007, which ultimately ended in a final report, being no. 22/07, which was accepted by the ld. judicial magistrate (1st class), dimapur, nagaland. on return to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
mridula roy, member, j.the instant appeal is directed against an order dated 02.06.2011 passed by d.c.d.r.f., murshidabad in case no. cc/114/2009 allowing the complaint on contest against o.p. no. 1 and dismissed ex parte against o.p. no. 2 with consolidated litigation cost of rs.500/- to be paid by the o.p. no. 1 to the complainant directing the o.p. no. 1 united bank of india, berhampore branch to pay the amount of rs.6,500/- to the complainant within six weeks from the date of the order, failing which an interest @ 8% per annum would carry upon the amount of rs.6,500/- from the date of filing of the case i.e. 06.08.2009 till the final payment. being aggrieved by that order the complainant filed the instant appeal on several grounds including that the ld. forum below did not consider the prayer for compensation of the complainant. the case of the complainant before the ld. forum below, in brief, is that she is the holder of an savings bank account being no. 479926 with the united bank of india, berhampore branch, district - murshidabad. the complainant received a cheque being no. 904755 drawn on the o.p. no. 2 from the o.p. no. 2 amounting to rs.6,500/-. the complainant deposited the cheque on 09.09.2008 with the o.p. no. 1 for the purpose of crediting the amount to her said s/b account. but the cheque has not been encashed till date though the complainant had been making repeated contact to the o.p. no. 1 from september, 2008 to august, 2009. having no other way to know .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
order no. 14 dt. 18.01.2013 s. coari, ld. member the record is placed today for passing necessary orders in respect of misc. applications nos. ma-227/2012, ma-228/2012, ma-229/2012, ma-230/2012, ma-231/2012, ma-232/2012, ma-233/2012, ma-234/2012 and ma-235/2012.ma-227/2012 in the misc. application no.227/2012, the misc. applicant/ respondent no.4 has contended that respondent has been un-necessarily impleaded in the present proceeding. the respondent no. 4, being a non executive director of the company viz. m/s dlf ltd., has got no role to play in the present transactions entered into between the two parties. in the absence of any specific claim against the present respondent by the complainant, it is useless to include the respondent in the present case. the respondent no.4 being a non executive director of the company, it is useless to implead the present respondent and hence the misc. application with the prayer for deleting the name of respondent no. 4 from the present complaint case and/or the petition of complaint filed against the present respondent is to be rejected/dismissed. at the time of hearing, it has been submitted on behalf of misc. applicant that the complainant has un-necessarily included in the respondent no. 4 in the present proceeding and on the reasons set forth above, misc. application should be allowed. we have duly considered the submissions, so put forward on behalf of the misc. applicant, and on perusal of materials and records, we find that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
silpi majumder, member: this appeal is filed by the appellant-op-1 before this commission out of time by 132 days from the date of passing the judgment by the ld. district forum, 24-parganas (south). the complaint was dismissed against the op-2 on contest and allowed on contest against the op-4 and exparte against the op-1 and 3. in the petition for condonation of delay it is stated by the appellant that on 18.04.2011 the office of the appellant received a letter from the advocate for the complainant-respondent-1, wherein the gist of the complaint was stated along with the ordering portion of the impugned judgment has also been mentioned. from the said letter it was revealed to the appellant that the ld. forum below has directed the op-1-appellant to release the provident fund dues of the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order to him along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of retirement till the payment is made. the op-1 was also directed to pay compensation of rs.25,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from this date and this amount would be paid from his salary and also from other staff and officer who are responsible for non-payment of the dues. under no circumstances this compensation amount would be paid from government exchequer. the op-1, 3 and 4 were also directed to pay litigation cost of rs.2000/- each to the complainant within 30 days from the date of passing the judgment. the op-3 and 4 were directed immediately to co- .....
Tag this Judgment!