Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
..... malik (one of us) stated in strong words that the appellant has definitely tried to mint money by leading the gullible people up the garden path and held petitioner responsible for huge deficiency in service which has resulted in playing with the careers of young children?. 12. ..... it becomes crystal clear that the petitioner / (ops) intention was to mint money. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
..... , a unit falling under sme sector for the purpose of setting up of its project of mint of gold and silver coins and manufacturing of semi precious and precious stones studded jewellery. ..... shiv shankar lal gupta, the complainant in this case is a promoter of clarity gold mint ltd. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
..... 86, started injection dubutamine 2 amp in drip 20 mint. ..... pulse 120, respiration 20 mint., b.p. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
..... one fails to understand as to how only one out of the 3 temperatures was continued to be monitored by the operator for 70 mints. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
rekha gupta, member revision petition no. 3998 of 2011 has been filed under section 21 (b) of the consumer protection act, 1986 against the order dated 31.01.2011 passed by the tamil nadu state consumer disputes redressal commission, chennai in appeal no. 646 of 2007. 2. the brief facts of the complaint as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner/ complainant is the wife of k s manickam, who has retired from his service. since the petitioners husband has also retired, the petitioner and husband wanted to start a motor business, wherefrom they eke their life in the remaining period. the petitioner tried to purchase a tempo van and from out of its income they proposed to eke their life. the petitioner searched various makes of tempo. since the petitioner made enquiry with the 2nd respondent/ 2nd opposite party, the 2nd respondent advised the petitioner that eicher vehicle 11.10.g hsd super long rhd 1c gb (turbo inter cooler) was the best vehicle and also advised that with the recommended laden condition the vehicle will give the mileage of 8 to 9 k m per litre. on hearing this petitioner purchased the vehicle eicher 11.10 turbo inter cooler bearing engine no. e 483t30690168 and chasis no. 20gc30602742 bearing registration no. ka 05 ac 7277 on 27.08.2003. 3. the petitioner plied the vehicle and did periodical service with the 1st respondent/ 1st opposite party, who is the authorised service dealer of the 2nd respondent. the petitioner faced a problem that the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
k.s. chaudhari, presiding member appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 06.12.2010 passed by the andhra pradesh state consumer disputes redressal commission, hyderabad (in short, the state commission) in c.c. no. 33/2009 bonda kasi annapurna vs. br. manager, bajaj allianz ins. co. ltd. and anr. by which, complaint was dismissed. 2. brief facts of the case are that complainants husband b.v.v. nageswara rao had taken policy of rs.25,00,000/- (personal guard - individual personal accident policy) for a period of 3 years from 8.12.2006 to 7.12.2009 from op/respondent no. 1. on 3.1.2008, complainants husband slipped from stairs and sustained injuries. ambulance was called and while going to hospital, complainants husband died. intimation was given to the op and claim was lodged, but claim was repudiated. alleging deficiency on the part of op, complainant filed complaint with state commission. op resisted complaint and submitted that death of insured was not on account of accident and as there was no post-mortem report and no intimation to police, prayed for dismissal of complaint. learned state commission after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint against which, this appeal has been filed along with application for condonation of 1163 days delay. 3. heard learned counsel for the appellant on application for condonation of delay. 4. learned counsel for the appellant submitted that delay occurred on account of financial constraints and as complainant was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
k.s. chaudhari, presiding member this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.02.2012 passed by the maharashtra state consumer disputes redressal commission, mumbai (in short, the state commission) in appeal no. a/03/1949 national seeds corpn. ltd. vs. sh. dadaso vishvanath bagal and anr. by which, appeal was dismissed at admission stage. 2. brief facts of the case are that complainants/respondents filed complaint before district forum and learned district forum vide order dated 28.11.2003 allowed complaint and directed op/petitioner to pay rs.56,000/- along with 9% p.a. interest, rs.4,000/- towards mental distress and rs.1500/- towards costs. appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned state commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. none appeared for respondent no. 2 even after service and he was proceeded ex-parte. 4. heard leaned counsel for the parties and perused record. 5. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order is not a speaking order as learned state commission has not dealt with the facts and pleas raised by petitioner in memo of appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to the learned state commission. learned counsel for the respondent submitted that district forum has already dealt the matter at length and order passed by learned state commission is in accordance with law; hence .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
dr. b.c. gupta, member these are two revision petitions filed against the impugned order dated 16.09.2013, passed by the rajasthan state consumer disputes redressal commission (for short the state commission) in first appeal no. 32 of 2013, rajasthan housing board versus gyan singh? and first appeal no. 33 of 2013 rajasthan housing board vs. karuna bohra?, vide which, the said appeals filed against the order of the district consumer disputes redressal forum in consumer complaint no. 787 and 664 of 2012 were again dismissed, after the remand order passed by this commission on 07.08.2013. this single order shall dispose of the two revision petitions and a copy of the same shall be placed on each file. 2. the facts of the case are that the complainants/respondents, gyan singh and karuna bohra submitted applications for booking flats in the scheme launched by the petitioner, housing board at mewar apartments, haldi ghati, pratap nagar, jaipur by making payment of registration amount of rs. 1,80,000/- each. the petitioners were successful in the draw of lots held on 14.4.2008 and allotment letters were issued to them. it has been alleged that despite making payment of the amounts demanded by the petitioner board from time to time, there was delay in the issue of possession letter and further demands were raised before giving possession of the flats, which were also deposited. it was also alleged that the petitioner had not completed the construction work of the flats at the time .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
dr. b.c. gupta, member these two first appeals have been filed under section 15 of the consumer protection act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 25.09.2013, passed by the tamilnadu state consumer disputes redressal commission, chennai (for short the state commission) in consumer complaint no. 92 of 2011, filed by the complainant/appellant r. suyamb ananthan and ors., vide which the said complaint was partly allowed. both the parties have filed appeals against this order, which are being disposed off by this order and a copy of the same should be placed on each file. 2. briefly stated, the facts of the case are that there are six complainants consisting of r. suyamb ananthan, his wife s. chitra, his son s. pradheep, his daughter s. janani, his wifes brother, p. muruganantham and their family friend s. shafiq ali ahamed. the complainants party decided to go on a foreign tour covering thailand and singapore for a week in may, 2011, for which they made bookings with the opposite party-m/s. cox and kings at their office in chennai. it has been stated that a total sum of rs.5,61,000/- was paid for the said bookings. the complainants have alleged that at the time of booking the tour, the opposite party blocked the tickets only for five complainants instead of six, and in the process, they left out the wife of the main complainant-s. chitra. on being pointed out that she had been left out, the complainants were assured that a separate ticket will be blocked for s. chitra and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
v.b. gupta, presiding member petitioners/opposite parties being aggrieved by order dated 03.07.2012, passed by the state consumer disputes redressal commission, haryana, panchkula(for short, state commission) have filed the present revision petition under section 21(b) of the consumer protection act, 1986(for short, act). alongwith it, applications seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned order as well as condonation of delay of 476 days have been filed. 2. brief facts are that respondent/complainant society was allotted a plot in faridabad. as per terms of the allotment, respondents society was entitled to rebate of 20% of the price of land, if it was able to complete the construction within 3 years from the offer of the possession. respondent completed the construction work within 3 years with intimation to the petitioners for claiming the rebate. however, petitioners rejected their claim. hence, a consumer complaint was filed before the district consumer disputes redressal forum, faridabad (for short, district forum). 3. the consumer complaint was contested by the petitioners, who in their written statement took the plea that respondents society has not completed the construction within the prescribed period and as such there is no delay on its part. 4. district forum vide order dated 25.5.2011, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners; torelease rebate amount of 20% of the land cost of the plot in question after deducting 10% of the .....
Tag this Judgment!