Court : Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
..... , bhopal. in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it can not be said that the complainant is not entitled to the benefit of section 14 of the limitation act, 1963 and the district forum was perfectly justified in condoning the delay in filing the consumer complaint. 10. learned counsel for the parishad cited a ..... in prosecuting the earlier proceedings. in the present case, the complainant was bonafidely prosecuting the earlier proceedings and, as such, he is entitled to the benefit of section 14 of the limitation act, 1963. 13. this apart, the honble supreme court in the case of mrs.rubi (chandra) dutta vs. m/s united india insurance company limited; ..... facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that in the year 1989, the complainant applied for allotment of type i house under the self-financing scheme floated by u.p. awas evam vikas parishad (hereinafter referred to as parishad?) and deposited sum of rs.25,000/- towards registration fee. the estimated cost .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
..... party nos. 2 and 3 also filed their written statement before the district forum and pleaded that sum of rs. 7,20,000/- was financed by the opposite party no. 1. 5. the district forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide ..... 3 towards margin money and also deposited sum of rs. 7,000/- in cash and sum of rs. 7,20,000/- was financed by the opposite parties. the complainant was regularly paying the loan installments. on 22.06.2007, the opposite party no. 2, on the ..... was registered as goods carriage and goods carriage permit was granted in favour of the complainant by the transport department, uttarakhand. the truck was financed by the opposite party no. 1 m/s tata motors ltd. complainant deposited sum of rs. 81,000/- with the opposite party no. ..... b.c. kandpal, president: 1. this is complainants appeal under section 15 of the consumer protection act, 1986 against the order dated 15.02.2010 passed by the district forum, dehradun in consumer complaint .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
..... on 20.08.2008. if the complainant was aggrieved by the award passed by the arbitrator, he should have filed objections against the same under section 34 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996, but the consumer complaint was not maintainable. 10. the learned counsel for the appellant has cited a decision of the honble national commission ..... in their written statement that the consumer complaint has been filed after a period of two years from the date of repossession of the vehicle. section 24a (1) of the consumer protection act, 1986 provides that the district forum, the state commission or the national commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two ..... paid a sum of rs.1,20,000/- in cash to the opposite party no. 1 on various dates and the remaining amount was financed by the opposite party no. 2 ashok leyland finance limited, haridwar. it is alleged that the complainant was regularly paying the loan installment of rs.11,500/- per month to the financier and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
b.c. kandpal, president: 1. this is an appeal under section 15 of the consumer protection act, 1986 against the order dated 06.06.2007 passed by the district forum, nainital in consumer complaint no. 61 of 2006, whereby the district forum has partly allowed the consumer ..... , are that the complainant is a timber merchant. on 19.10.2005, the complainant had purchased a chevrolet tavera car from the opposite party no. 1. the said car was financed by bank of baroda. the complainant had given a demand draft for sum of rs. 8,91,109/- dated 20.10.2005 towards cost of the vehicle to the opposite .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
..... amounts to supremacy of the appellants even above the countrys judicial system. it has also been argued that if a consumer has a grievance, then the provisions of the electricity act can provide the relief, but the department being technical, none else can interfere in the matter. the electrical inspector of the government of uttarakhand has stated in very clear and .....
Tag this Judgment!