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 by the complainant, directing the opposite party, to pay rs.3,44,000/-, the amount spent on his treatment, alongwith interest ..... to the claim of the complainant, and, as such, the repudiation of his genuine claim, by the opposite party, 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
..... we regret, we cannot agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. in our opinion, an interpretation has to be given to the amended section 17(2)(b) of the act, which does not lead to an absurd consequence. if the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, it will mean that ..... opinion, the district forum, at chandigarh, had no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. while interpreting the provisions of section 17(2)(b) of the act, which are para-materia to section 11 of the act, in sonic surgical vs national insurance company ltd. iv(2009) cpj 40(sc), the apex court held as under ; 4 ..... 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 deliver the legal physical possession of the plot, in question; pay interest @18 .....
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 parties, to convert the water tariff plan, from commercial to residential; refund the amount, received by them, in ..... legal notice dated 09.11.2012 annexure c-7, to the opposite parties, to withdraw the illegal demand aforesaid, but to no avail. 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, left with no alternative .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
..... web, voice calls, sms etc. were totally commercial in nature. thus, the appellant/complainant did not fall within the definition of consumer as defined in section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the act, which is extracted below:- (d)"consumer" means any person who (i) xxxxx (ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which ..... notice, but to no avail. 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 seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay rs.20,822/- alongwith interest @18% per annum, from 1 ..... consequence or liability that you may incur as a result of a breach of this addendum, justdial may initiate approptiate legal proceedings including under the payment and settlement systems act, 2007. (b) xxxxx (c) registration fee and payment by ecs: the contract would be valid for 12 months from the contracts effective date. except for .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
..... cause. there is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. this court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under section 5 of the limitation act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide shakuntala devi jain v. kuntal kumari, (1969) 1 scr 1006 and state ..... showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that. (iv) whilst considering applications for condonation of delay under section 5 of the limitation act, the courts do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers. all discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known ..... under: (i). the courts generally adopt a liberal approach in considering the application for condonation of delay on the ground of sufficient cause under section 5 of the limitation act. (ii) rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. they are meant to see that the parties do not .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
..... rendering service and indulgence into unfair trace 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 the relief that the opposite parties be directed to refund rs.23.10 lacs alongwith interest @18% per annum from ..... control of the company including government strike or due to civil commotion or by reason of war or enemy action or earthquake or any act of god or if non delivery is as a result of any act, notice, order, rule or notification of the govt. and any other public or competent authority or for any reason beyond the control of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
..... 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 party, to reimburse, the amount of rs.15,000/-, spent by him, on his ..... but, on the other hand, it was repudiated. he further submitted that repudiation of claim of the complainant was illegal and arbitrary. he further submitted that the act of repudiation of claim of the complainant, on the part of the opposite party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence, into unfair trade ..... aside the order of the fora below, the national consumer disputes redressal commission, new delhi, held as under; word immediately has not been defined under the act. resort has to be made to the dictionary meaning assigned to it. as per oxford advanced learners dictionary, the word immediately means at once. as per strouds .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
..... first question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, this commission has got territorial jurisdiction, to entertain the complaint, or not. according to section 17 of the act, the consumer complaint could be filed, by the complainants, before the state consumer disputes redressal commission, within the territorial jurisdiction, whereof a part of cause ..... joint written version, pleaded that the complainants who are not related to each other, did not fall with the definition of consumers, as defined under section 2(d) of the act, as they were speculators, and invested in the property, with an intention, to earn profits, after selling the same. it was further pleaded ..... plot, in question. 22. the next question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the complainants are entitled to compensation, under section 14(1)(d) of the act, on account of mental agony and physical harassment and injury caused to them, for a long number of years, by not delivering the physical possession .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
..... to the complainant, 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 purpose ..... service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. when the grievance of the complainant, 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, directing the opposite parties to pay rs.33,17,505/-, on account of the buy back offer, as per clause 25 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
..... goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;?further, as per section 2(o) of the act, service? does not include rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service. here also, the service, sought to ..... cost. thus, it is not a service against consideration, and, thus, the appellant/complainant did not fall within the definition of consumer as defined in section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the act, which is extracted below:- (d)"consumer" means any person who (i) xxxxx (ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which ..... part of the opposite parties. 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 seeking directions to the opposite parties, to pay compensation for deficiency in service by not providing free air .....
Tag this Judgment!