Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
..... singh, president (oral) 1. this appeal is directed against the order dated 26.08.2013, of learned district consumer disputes redressal forum, mandi, whereby a complaint, under section 12 of the consumer protection act, 1986, filed by respondent-parma nand saini against the present appellants, has been allowed and a direction given to them to pay a sum of rs.71,609 ..... (1) (o) of the consumer protection act, 1986, as follows:- service? means service of any description which is made available to potential [users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of] facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, [housing construction,] entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
..... clearly amounts to an unfair trade practice hence deficiency of service had been alleged on the part of opposite parties. 3. in this background, complaint under section 12 consumer protection act, 1986 had been filed for deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, wherein relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause had ..... to the version filed by the opposite parties had been filed by the complainant. hence, there was no illegality in repossessing the vehicle by the opposite party/financing company. 11. it is settled legal position that even loan is defaulted, then the vehicle can only be repossessed through legal means and financier cannot adopt extra ..... as already stated hereinabove in the preceding paras of this order. our view is supported by the judgment of national commission given in case titled as bajaj auto finance limited versus bhupinder singh reported in 2006 (3) cpr 172 (nc) and a judgment of this commission given in case titled as jitender singh guleria versus .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
..... similar flats, subsequent to the allotment in their favour, at a lesser price of rs.9,30,000/-. respondent then filed a complaint under section 12 of the consumer protection act, 1986 before the ld. district consumer disputes redressal forum, shimla, seeking a direction to the appellant to refund the difference between the amount charged ..... may be noticed. sometime in the year 1992, appellant advertised a scheme for construction of certain flats in strawberry hills area of shimla. that was a self-financing scheme. flats were constructed and sought to be sold in accordance with the said scheme. however, several flats remained unsold. the board of directors of the ..... higher than the frozen original cost at the time of initial costing could not have been charged and that the appellant, by charging higher price, had committed an act of unfair trade practice. consequently, the complaint was allowed and the aforesaid order passed. we have heard ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
..... upon the opposite, parties but of no avail. 5. hence deficiency of service have been alleged on the part of the opposite parties and complaint under section 12 of consumer protection act, 1986 has been filed wherein directions have been sought against the opposite parties for return the vehicle and to pay compensation on account of harass ment, ..... try and decide the present complaint as the allegations levelled in the complaint do not constitute a consumer dis pute and it is settled legal position that the financer can repossess the vehicle as per terms of loan agreement, so there is no ille gality or unlawfullness in the right of the bank to repossess the vehicle ..... issued about 70 to 78 cheques for the satisfaction and security of their loan amount and as per terms and conditions, the ops fixed monthly instal ment of whole financed money payable through cheques. 3. further allegation in the complaint are that a lease agreement was also prepared with opposite party no. 2 by the complain ant, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
..... reply or anywhere else as to on which date the civil suit was presented. in any case, in view of the provision of section 3 of the consumer protection act, 1986, which says that the provisions of the act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provision of any other law for the time being in force, a consumer can ..... complaint is stated to be counterblast to the civil suit filed by the opposite party. it is alleged that the complainants are not consumer within the meaning of consumer protection act, 1986, as the services, in respect of which complaint has been filed, were availed by them to make profits. on merits, it is stated that 90% of the job had ..... justice (retd.) surjit singh, president (oral): 1. complainants have approached this commission, by means of the present complaint, under section 17 of the consumer protection act, 1986, seeking directions to the opposite party; "a) to refund a sum of rs.21,61,560/-, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, which amount of money, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
..... order dated 22.09.2011, of learned district consumer disputes redressal forum, kullu, whereby his complaint, under section 12 of the consumer protection act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, has been dismissed. 2. appellant filed a complaint, under section 12 of the consumer protection act, 1986, alleging that he was approached by the functionaries of respondent indusind bank to purchase a commercial ..... that it was executed at kullu and, therefore, the district forum at kullu had the jurisdiction. repossession of the vehicle had taken place at chandigarh and thus the alleged unlawful act of illegal repossession of the vehicle had also not taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of district forum, kullu. 6. appellant had participated in the arbitration proceedings held at chennai .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
..... omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the forum. (3) no proceedings complying with the procedure laid down in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be called in question in any court on the ground that principles of natural justice have not been complied with. (4) for the ..... our view this submission also requires to be rejected because under the act, for summary or speedy trial, exhaustive procedure in conformity with the principles of natural justice is provided. therefore, merely because it is mentioned that commission or forum is ..... questions of facts that can be decided in summary proceedings by the fora below. hence in view of the judgement of apex court given supra foras under consumer protection act, 1986 are legally competent to decide the question of law and facts in summary manner. the relevant portion of the judgement is quoted in extenso:- 12. in .....
Tag this Judgment!