Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on : Jan-03-2014
..... we would also like to confirm that there are no other changes in the terms and conditions of the buyers agreement, apart from the clauses already amended in the amendment agreement. trust that clarified?.still vide annexure c-9 dated 15.7.2013 the opposite parties in response to email of complainant no.1 (annexure c ..... , 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 of action ..... 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 that this commission, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on : Jan-15-2014
..... 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 even if ..... is situated. we cannot agree with this contention. it will lead to absurd consequences and lead to bench-hunting. in our opinion, the expression branch office in the amended section 17(2) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen. no doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of ..... will not help the case of the appellant. learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-insurance company has a branch office at chandigarh and hence under the amended section 17(2) the complaint could have been filed in chandigarh. we regret, we cannot agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. in our opinion, an .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on : Mar-03-2014
..... 81 nc, in support of his contention, that the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer. it may be stated here, that section 2(1)(d)(ii), was amended by act 62 of 2002 w.e.f. 15.03.2003, and it was incorporated therein that services availed of, for commercial purpose, were excluded from the ambit of services, and person ..... consumer does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. section 2(1)(d)(ii), which was amended by act 62 of 2002 w.e.f. 15.03.2003, clearly lays down that the person who hires or avails of the services, for a consideration, for any commercial purpose, shall ..... -multi city cheques, and thereby charged the complainant, twice it was stated that, on 20.04.2012, the complainant firm, issued rtgs remittance of rs.5,99,056/-, to the indian oil corporation limited (iocl) panipat, but the opposite parties diverted the said payment to iocl bombay, by making entry, in a different account, as a result whereof, release of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on : Mar-03-2014
..... , possession thereof (plot), would be delivered, to the complainant. it was further stated that the amended agreement dated 06.07.2012, annexure r-1, thus, superseded the original plot buyer`s agreement dated 04.07.2007 annexure c-1. it was further stated that the ..... july, 2012, when the alternate plot (108-mlu-33-300), was allotted, in his favour. it was stated that, at the time of allotment of alternate plot, amended agreement dated 06.07.2012 annexure r-1, was executed between the parties, wherein, it was, in clear-cut terms, provided that only after development of the infrastructure work ..... is, as to whether, the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer, as defined by section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the act, or not. the complainant, no doubt, is non-resident indian (nri), and is settled in canada. it was the residential plot, which was allotted, in favour of the complainant. the mere objection of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on : Apr-25-2014
..... clearance from the concerned government departments/ agencies and they collected huge amounts, which amounted to unfair trade practice. it was further submitted that the said application for amendment was arbitrarily declined by the district forum. it was further submitted that the district forum held that the judgments, relied upon by the complainant could be referred at ..... no.2 for his and his family members flats/plots. when the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, a complaint under section 12 of the consumer protection act, 1986, seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund rs.4,00,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum, rs.1 lac as compensation for mental agony ..... it was further stated that the unit, which was allotted previously to the complainant, was re-allotted at higher rates to some other individual, therefore, the act of forfeiture of the entire amount of rs.4 lacs amounted to undue enrichment in as much as no loss whatsoever was caused to opposite party no.1. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on : Apr-29-2014
..... agreement supercedes communication, if any, issued by ccil representatives (including on company letter head or stamp paper) and the benefits and terms of membership listed here and amendment are final and binding on ccil, and myself.? 16. clearly, the respondent/complainant signed the agreement with his eyes wide open and there was also a stipulation, ..... in relying upon the lucknow development authority vs. m. k. guptas case, wherein it was held by the honble apex court that the provisions of the act have to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve purpose of the enactment as it is a social benefit oriented legislation. it also wrongly relied ..... further stated that now on 1.6.2013, the opposite parties flatly refused to aceede to the request of the complainant. 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!