Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
(The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellant / opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.49,350/- for completing the unfinished works done by the complainant, to pay Rs.50,000/- for the sub-standard and poor construction works done by the opposite party and to pay Rs.1 lakh towards damages for mental agony. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.7.04.2006 in C.C.33/2004.) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The respondent in this appeal, as complainant, filed a case, for the recovery of a sum of Rs.49,350/- being the value of, completing the unfinished work done by the complainant and for Rs.50,000/- for sub-standard and poor construction work done by the opposite party, as well for a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards damage for mental agony on the following grounds. 3....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The 2nd opposite party before the District Forum is the appellant herein. 2. The 1st respondent as complainant, approached the lower forum for the recovery of several amounts, on various heads, alleging that the appellant as well as the 1st opposite party committed deficiency in service. 3. The complainant wished to migrate to Australia, for which on seeing the advertisement, he approached the opposite parties, paid amounts also on various dates. Under the agreement, they have also assured visa, failing which to return the amount. Unfortunately, the 1st opposite party unable to secure job to the satisfaction of the complainant, resulting refusal of visa also, for which in the complaint, the 1st respondent herein accuses the opposite parties, as if they have committed deficiency in service and because of their conduct, he had lost the opportunity of employment, which gave cause of action for claiming compensation also, as if he had lost the alternativ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Chennai(South) alleging deficiency against the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,00,000/- towards policy amount, to pay Rs.30,000/- for negligence and deficiency of service, to pay Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs. The District Forum, allowed the complaint in part against the opposite parties. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Chennai (South), dated 24.02.09 in C.C.No.326/2004. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 27.04.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :- A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties before the Distr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
The Respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Chennai (South) alleging deficiency against the opposite party and praying to pay the matured amount of Rs.43,100/- with 24% interest, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards mental harassment, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this proceedings. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by opposite party, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Chennai (South) dt.3.10.2007 in CC.No.575/2005. After hearing the arguments of both parties, finally on 2.2.2011, this Commission made the following order : A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. Respondent/Complainant filed complaint against the opposite party for deficiency of service in settling LIC policy claim and claiming payment of Rs.43,100/- as maturity value of policy with 24% interest and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
K.SAMPATH J. 1. The opposite party in O.P.No.14/2002 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udhagamandalam, is the appellant herein. He has also taken out an application for reception of additional documents. 2. The case of the complainant was as follows: - He was subscriber of telephone No.517755. There were no dues payable by him. He received a letter from the department dt.04/04/2002 claiming a sum of Rs.2,56,108/- as alleged dues payable by his father for telephone Nos:-13068, 43731, 57203, 57236 and 59214. The complainant's telephone was disconnected on the basis of the said letter. There was also a dispute between his father and the telephone department pending before the Subordinate Judge, Nilgiris in O.S.No.77/2000 and it related to the Firm M/s.Arian Tea Enterprises and his father was not a partner therein. The department had earlier sent a letter dt.11/03/2002 to the complainant claiming Rs.58,909/- failing payment of which by 16/03/2002 his telephon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
N. KANNADASAN J. (Open Court) 1. The petitioner is the opposite party and the respondent herein is the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The above Revision Petition is filed in dismissing the application filed by the opposite party wherein the objection is raised to decide the issue of jurisdiction as preliminary issue. 3. According to the Petitioner/Opposite Party, the entire cause of action arises only at Salem District and even no amount was received by the opposite party and it was not agreed to deliver the Trailer/Tractor at the premises of the complainant and no cause of action arose at Nagapattinam District. 4. The District Forum has rejected the said contention, against which the present R.P. is filed. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Opposite Party raised the above contentions and also relied upon the unreported judgement rendered by Honble High Court of Delhi in Arbitration Application No.242/2006, dated 04.01.2007 rendered in Rattan Singh Associates (P)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 13.09.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-) A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. Unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. Complainants husband took a RPLI Policy from 2nd opposite party on 21.1.06 for Rs.25,000/- for 17 years by paying the premium of Rs.128/- and the 2nd premium to be paid only after receiving the policy bond and pass book from the opposite parties and promised it would be sent within one month. The complainants husband often contacted the 2nd opposite party in this regard, but the pass book and the bond was not given to the complainants husband who died subsequently in an accident on 23.4.06. The 1st opposite party sent the policy bond and the pass book through 2nd opposite party on 8.6.06 and the 2nd opposite party returned the same with an endorsement addressee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the first opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.4,75,000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardship due to deficiency in service and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.18.01.2010 in C.C.192/2000. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 18.10.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The first opposite party in C.C.192/2000 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai [North], having suffered an adverse order dated 18.01.2010, challenges the same in this appeal on various grounds. 2. Factual matrix: The complainants/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
(Theses petition coming before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:) JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI, PRESIDENT 1. The District Forum, and the office of this Commission, declined to entertain the complaints preferred against various service providers of telecommunication, under Sec.12 and 17 of Consumer Protection Act, in view of Sec.7B of Indian Telegraph Act and the judgement of the Honble Supreme Court, in General Manager, Telecom Vs, M. Krishnan and Another, reported in CTJ (2009) 1062. 2. The allegation in general made by the complainants are that they have subscribed for mobile phone/cellular phone with various service providers like BSNL, Bharati AIRTEL Ltd., relating to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in providing bills relating to excess billing, wrong calculation, delay in providing serv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
J. Jayaram, Judicial Member This appeal is filed by the 2nd opposite party against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai [North] in C.C.155/2010, dated 10-11-2011, allowing the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant is that, he purchased a new SWIFT Diesel VDI Model car bearing registration No. TN-18 A-5424 on 25-9-2009 for a sum of Rs.5,69,723/- which includes Road Tax, Insurance and cost of accessories. The first service was done on 28-10-2009 on completion of 911 KMs and 2nd service was done on 31-12-2009 at 5526 KMs. On 8-4-2010 during routine check-up he found no oil trace in the dip stick and he left the car with the 1st opposite party for necessary check-up and service and the car was returned to him on 16-4-2010 by the opposite party informing him that the engine was found having 1.7 litre of engine oil and that there was leak in the turbo charger and lubricating line due to which oil was running continuously and hence oil level has been steadi...
Tag this Judgment!