Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
ANUPAM DASGUPTA This appeal challenges the order dated 02.05.2003 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, the State Commission) in complaint case no. 83 of 1998 by which the State Commission dismissed the complaint. The appellants were the complainants and the respondent the opposite party before the State Commission. On the complainants filing this appeal, this Commission first dismissed it by its order dated 21.04.2004. The complainants/appellants went up in appeal against that order by way of special leave petition before the Supreme Court and the Court, by judgment dated 16.09.2005, set aside the said order of this Commission and remanded the matter back for disposal according to law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. FACTS 2. The essential facts, gleaned from the pleadings, evidence and documents on record before the State Commission, are as follows: (i) D. H. Kumari, complainant/appellant no. 1 (hereafter, Kumari),...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
R.C. Jain, Presiding Member: 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.12.2007 passed by the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (for short the State Commission) in C.D. Appeal No. 406 of 2005, Bijoy Kumar Sarangi (who was arrayed as opposite party No.5 in the complaint filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Khurda, Bhubaneswar) has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act). The appeal before the State Commission was also filed by the petitioner- herein against the order dated 23.02.2005 passed by the District Forum Khurda in complaint case No. 382 of 2003. By the said order, the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant respondent No.1 herein ex-parte against the opposite parties with a direction to the opposite parties to refund the balance deposited amount of Rs. 3,30,000/- (Rupees three lacs thirty thousand only) to the complainant within ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
Vineeta Rai, Member 1. This First Appeal has been filed by New India Assurance Company Ltd., Opposite Party before the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) and Appellant herein being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission which had allowed the complaint of M/s Trimurti Tablewares Ltd., Original Complainant before the State Commission and Respondent herein. 2. FACTS : Respondent-Complainant M/s Trimurti Tablewares Ltd., a limited company, contended that it was running the business of manufacturing glass tumblers, bottles and other gift items of glass in its factory premises at Village Bhagpur, Machhiwara Road, Kohara, District Ludhiana, for which he had taken a cash credit limit of Rs.75 Lakhs and a term loan of Rs.307.50 Lakhs from Indian Overseas Bank for its building, plant, machinery and stocks etc. Respondent-Complainant got the building, plant, machinery, accessories, raw material and finished goo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER ICI India Limited, (Now known as Akzo Nobel India Ltd.), (opposite party No.2 in the complaint before the District Forum) has filed these petitions against the orders passed by the Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh (for short the State Commission). Revision Petition No. 3253 of 2011 has been filed against the order dated 12.01.2011 passed by the State Commission in First Appeal Nos. 1116 of 2005 while the Revision Petition No. 3254 of 2011 has been filed against the Order dated 12.07.2011 passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 1464, 1465, 1466 and 1467 of 2011. 2. By the earlier order dated 12.01.2011, the State Commission had partly allowed the appeal filed by Dr. Sunil Chawla complainant against the order dated 07.06.2005 passed by the District Forum, Amritsar, thereby dismissing the complaint filed by the above named complainant seeking compensation from the petitioner herein and Gokal Chand and Co. (opposite party No.1), supplier of the paint ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. This order shall decide the revision petition filed in respect of an interim order passed by learned State Commission. The said cryptic order runs as follows:- œComplaint presented against Bank of Baroda Narhi Branch Lucknow. The Learned Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had taken loan from the opposite party for self employment and he had from time to time been repaying the same. Present complaint the opposite party bank has already issued a notice dated 02.06.2012 for auction of the property. Till further orders the notice dated 02.06.2012 is stayed with the directions that the opposite party bank would not take coercive steps against the complaint. The complaint be listed for hearing on 20.07.2012.? 2. The complainant, M/s Geeta Foods is a proprietorship concern. It took loan from the Bank of Baroda, opposite party. The complainant waddled out of the commitments and did not pay off the loan. His account was classif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
Suresh Chandra, Member: 1. Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 20.9.2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh (State Commission for short) by which the State Commission allowed the appeal of the respondent against the order of the District Forum passed on 21.12.2005 by which the District Forum had dismissed the complaint filed by the respondent. By its impugned order, the State Commission directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 14,400 in all to the respondent as compensation in respect of the Red Coral weighing 8 Rattis within a period of one month after which the amount would carry interest @ 9% p.a. The consumer complaint in this case was filed by the respondent against the petitioner who was opposite party before the District Forum. 2. Briefly stated, the respondent had handed over to the petitioner a gold ring of pure gold studded with Ruby stone on 24.7.2004 to stud another precious stone Moonga weighing 8.25 Rattis. The pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. Being aggrieved by order dated 16.8.2007, passed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short as State Commission), petitioner has filed this present revision petition under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as Act). 2. Alongwith this revision petition, an application seeking condonation of delay of 4 years 91 days has also been filed. 3. Respondent (complainant before the District Forum) had filed complaint against the present petitioners (opposite parties before the District Forum) stating that she has invested Rs.30,000/- in Indra Vikas Patra. However, the original certificates were lost and facts about the loss was reported to the Police Station. After maturity, when respondent made a claim for payment of the money, the same was rejected. 4. District Forum, vide its order dated 5.7.2004, dismissed the complaint. 5. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, respondent preferred an appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member Revision petitions No. 3025-3027 of 2011 arises out of common order dated 23.6.2006, passed in First Appeals No.1311-1313 of 2006 by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka(for short, State Commission) whereas, Revision Petition No.3028 of 2011 arise out of order dated 16.8.2007, passed in First Appeal No.1692 of 2007 by the State Commission. Since, common question of facts and law are involved in these petitions, as such above noted petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Complainants filed consumer complaints against the Petitioner on the allegations that attracted by the Housing Scheme launched by the petitioner, they wanted to purchase plots for which certain amount was paid by way of consideration. However, there was no development of any of the plots, so they requested the Petitioner/O.P. No.2 to refund the amounts paid by them. Since, petitioner fails to refund the amount, complainants filed consumer complaints seekin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Present revision petition has been filed by petitioner challenging order dated 23.7.2010, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short as State Commission). 2. Vide impugned order, appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, being barred by limitation. 3. Brief facts are that respondents (complainants in the District Forum) filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) against petitioner(opposite party in the District Forum) on the ground that respondent no.1 has suffered shock, trauma and mental agony due to the poor educational facilities being provided by the petitioner and as such he could not concentrate on his studies. Accordingly, respondents sought the following reliefs before the District Forum; i) To direct the opposite party to refund back Rs.65,730/- with interest, @ 18% per annum from the date of its receiving to the date of its realization. ii) To pay a sum of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
Suresh Chandra, Member Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 11.5.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (State Commission for short) in F.A. No.2544 of 2004 by which the State Commission reversed the order of the District Forum, Karnal, allowed the appeal of the respondents and dismissed the complaint. The impugned order of the State Commission may be reproduced thus:- œFrom the documents produced on record, it is a well proved case of theft of energy in a novel way adopted by the complainant and as such the penalty imposed upon the complainant by the opposite parties for committing theft of energy causing loss to the State Exchequer, cannot be termed as œdeficiency of service?. The District Forum at the time of passing the order dated 30.6.2004 has not considered all these aspects and as such the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.? 2. We have heard the petitioner who appeared in person and...
Tag this Judgment!