Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
..... indulged into unfair trade practice. when the grievance of the complainants was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under section 12 of the consumer protection act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the act? only), was filed. 3. in their joint written statement, the opposite parties took up a preliminary objection, that the ..... question, which is involved for determination, in this case is, as to whether, the complainants are consumers, as defined under the provisions of the consumer protection act, 1986. the perusal of the allotment letter dated 17.07.2008, annexure c-19 shows that the estate officer, ut, chandigarh allotted the alternative residential site ..... and anothers case (supra), the complainants, in the instant case, cannot be termed to be consumers as defined under the provisions of the consumer protection act, 1986 because they are only auction purchasers which is supported by clause 17 of the allotment which reads that the govt. shall not be responsible for .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
..... service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. when the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under section 12 of the consumer protection act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the act? only), was filed. 3. in its written reply, the opposite party admitted that the father of the complainant sh.p.b.sharma took the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
..... service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. when the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under section 17 of the consumer protection act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the act only), was filed, seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay rs.67,80,293/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
..... commission or the national commission are required to examine the complaint to find out (1) whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the act, and is entitled to invoke the original jurisdiction of the consumer forum; (ii) whether the complaint raises one or more consumer disputes viz., unfair ..... new delhi, similar principle of law, was laid down. under these circumstances, the complainant did not qualify as a consumer, as defined by section 2(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the act. it is, therefore, held that the complainant does not fall within the ambit of a consumer, and, as such, the complaint was not ..... also indulgence into unfair trade practice. when the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under section 12 of the consumer protection act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the act only), was filed, directing the opposite parties, to reverse the increased rate of interest, on the loan amount, aforesaid, i.e .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
..... , a complaint under section 12 of the consumer protection act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the act only), was filed, directing the opposite party, to pay the claim amount, to the tune of rs.2,24,929/-, spent by him on ..... proposal form and signing the same. it was further stated that repudiation of the genuine claim of the complainant was illegal and arbitrary. it was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the opposite party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. when the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
..... the application for condonation of delay of 111 days, (as per the office report 117 days), being devoid of merit, is dismissed. consequently, the appeal, under section 15 of the act, is also dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs, being barred by time, as also, on merits. 28. certified copies of this ..... above, it was obligatory, on the applicants/ appellants, to take immediate steps to ensure that the appeal was filed within the prescribed period, as envisaged by section 15 of the act. however, the applicants/ appellants, just slept over the matter, and did not take the requisite steps to file the appeal, in time. it was, thus ..... that the applicants/appellants started taking steps, for filing an appeal, only when they came to know that the complainant/respondent no.1, had initiated proceedings, under section 27 of the act, against them, in the district forum, for compliance of the order impugned. since, the instant appeal, has been filed, after a long delay of 111 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
..... it sought refund, and, under these circumstances, it fell within the definition of a consumer. 9. as per the explanation appended to clause (ii) of section 2(d) of the act commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him/her, and services availed of by him/her exclusively, for the ..... redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under section 17 of the consumer protection act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the act only), was filed, directing the opposite parties as under:- i)op no.1 be directed to refund to the complainant the money and ..... she was again offered a buy back option, which she opted vide letter dated 17.08.2013, annexure c-10. 4. it was further stated that the aforesaid acts on the part of the opposite parties, amounted to deficiency in rendering service, as also, indulgence into unfair trade practice. when the grievance of the complainant, was not .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
..... , the complainants did not start residing in the said residential unit and that the complaint was filed by two individuals but no application under section 12(1)(c) of the act was filed. on merits, it was stated that the the complainants accepted the terms and conditions and covenants of the allotment letter, annexure c ..... into unfair trade practice. when the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under section 12 of the consumer protection act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the act only), was filed, directing the opposite parties to pay rs.8,37,150/-, which included rs.11,508/- as extra amount ..... the opposite parties, in their written version, took up certain preliminary objections, to the effect, that the complainants were not consumers? under the definition of the act because they invested in the property purely for commercial purpose; that even after the intimation of offer of delivery of possession by the opposite parties on 12.7.2012 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
..... above, the application for condonation of delay of 61 days, (as per the office report 63 days), being devoid of merit, is dismissed. consequently, the appeal, under section 15 of the act, is also dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs, being barred by time, as also, on the ground that the same was not maintainable ..... as stated above, it was obligatory, on the applicant/appellant, to take immediate steps to ensure that the appeal was filed within the prescribed period, as envisaged by section 15 of the act. however, the partners of the applicant/appellant, just slept over the matter, and did not take the requisite steps to file the appeal, in time. it was ..... is sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 61 days, as per the applicant/appellant (as per the office report 63 days), in filing the appeal, under section 15 of the act. it was held in smt.tara wanti vs state of haryana through the collector, kurukshetra air 1995 punjab and haryana 32, a case decided by a full .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
..... the only remedy, which lay with him, was to file revision petition, before the national consumer disputes redressal commission, new delhi, as provided by section 21 (a) (ii) of the act. otherwise also, this commission has no jurisdiction, to review its own order, in view of the principle of law laid down by the honble ..... , left with no alternative, the aforesaid complaint under section 12 of the consumer protection act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the act only), was filed, directing the opposite parties, to pay the actual amount of personal pay, to which he is entitled, ..... punjab and haryana high court, referred to above, by the opposite parties, amounted to commission of contempt of court. it was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the opposite parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. when the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed .....
Tag this Judgment!