Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
R.N. Mittal, President: 1. Briefly, the facts are that the complainant is exporting goods to various countries. Two bills were drawn by them (Complainant) on M/s. Tiru Garment Industries, Kathmandu; one for Rs. 1,78,947/- and the other for Rs. 6,24,541.71 on 26th September 1988. The bills were submitted to the Opposite Party (O.P.) for collection around 26.9.88 against the letters of credit opened by Rashtriya Banijya Bank Ltd. Kathmandu, Nepal, (hereinafter referred to as the Nepal Bank) on behalf of the drawees of the bills. 2. It is alleged that generally bills are received within 2 weeks or so from the date of submitting them to the O.P. for collection, but the proceeds in the present case were credited to the account of the complainant on 9th December, 1988. They received a letter dated 15th Jan., 90 from the O.P. informing that the proceeds of the bills had been received by them on 29th March, 1989 whereas the credit for the amount had been given in their account on 9.12.88. Cons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The complainant, Shri Jai Prakash Saini, has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), averring therein that the complainant, an ex-serviceman, re-employed with the Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi as a Clerk-cum-Coin Note Examiner, in August, 1997 suffered stomach ailment, consulted the Medical Officer of the Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi, for treatment, who, after examining the complainant, gave treatment which provided only temporary relief to the complainant and gradually two glands on the neck and one gland on the left side of the face of the complainant appeared. The Medical Officer of the Reserve Bank of India, under whose treatment the complainant was, after a few days of medication advised the complainant to consult some surgical specialist. On the advice of the Medical Officer of the Reserve Bank of India, the complainant approached the doctor at the Armed Forces C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellants, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against order dated 24.10.2002, passed by District Forum (New Delhi), in Complaint Case No. OC/309/2000 entitled Shri Arjan Dass and Ors. v. Royal Nepal Airlines, 44 Janpath, New Delhi. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal lie in a narrow compass. The appellants had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum averring therein that the appellants had travelled from Delhi Airport to Kathmandu (Nepal) on 2.5.1992 by Flight No. RA-218, operated by the respondent. It was stated that at the time of boarding the flight at Delhi, the appellants had handed over their baggage, consisting of 5 suitcases to the functionaries of the respondent for being transported from Delhi to Nepal. It was stated that, on their arrival at Kathmandu Airport, all the 5 suitcases, were f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against order dated 8.3.2003, passed by District Forum (Central), Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 328/2002 entitled M/s. Bhatter Silver Smith Pvt. Ltd. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Anr. 2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent M/s. Bhatter Silver Smith Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Shri Roshan Dabriwal, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring therein that the respondent was engaged in the business of fabrication of silver jewellery and a Jewellers Block Insurance Policy bearing No. 46/45/99/90041 was obtained by the respondent from the appellant for the period from 5.6.1998 to 4.6.1999, covering stocks for Rs. 50,000/- and cash and currency...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
J.D. Kapoor, President: 1. There cannot be a worst case of inhuman and professionally unethical approach of a member of medical profession qua the patients. Medical profession has down the ages been held as most noble profession and rightly so as the members of medical profession not only serve humanity but also provide succour to the persons suffering from physical ailments. 2. This case demonstrates the highly unethical and unscrupulous conduct of the respondents. It is because of such malpractices by the medical profession that it is day-by-day getting disrupted. Mere complaint of pain in the right chest landed the complainant in the hospital of the O.Ps. He was subjected to a large number of ECG tests. His condition though improved on the first day but he was kept in the hospital for ulterior motive to extract money by putting him and his son and family members under the pall of constant fear of having suffered severe heart attack whereas heart function was normal and without any p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. Complainant is the sole proprietor of the firm M/s. Commercial Corporation engaged in the business of export of readymade garments. On account of deficiency in service by the O.P. Bank in not honouring the Dollar Card issued by the O.P. and its subsequent cancellation, the complainant has sought compensation of Rs. 11,85,000 on account of loss of reputation and loss of business. 2. Allegations giving rise to this complaint in brief are that the complainant obtained a Dollar Card from the O.P. in the year 1990 for M/s. Commercial Corporation for his use. Besides the Dollar Card which was to be exclusively used only outside the country for Dollar payment, he also had Rupees Card issued by the O.P. for local payments. For four years the complainant had been using the Card. In the month of February, 1994, the complainant was at Kathmandu and while he was clearing his bills by presenting the card, the Hotel people (Everest Hotel, Kathmandu) refused to honou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral): 1. They are multi-nationals and therefore have background of having competent professionals and personnel. They have business in highly civilized and developed countries. They are engaged in the business of finance and lending. Their wealth is immense and they have lost track of their wealth. It is because of this that they dont pay any heed to the orders passed by the judicial and quasi-judicial authorities of this country dealing with the consumer disputes arising from their deficiency in service. They do not listen to the Apex Court of this country namely the Supreme Court of India. They do not believe in rule of law. They consider themselves above law. They dont believe in legal method of recovery of dues. For recovering few thousands of rupees towards loan amount by way of instalments from the borrower they engage musclemen and goondas as recovery agents who waylay people while they are driving the financed vehicle on the road along with their famili...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
V.K. Gupta, Member(Judicial): 1. This appeal by the appellant/OP of complaint case No.846/2006 is directed against the order dated 21.01.2009 passed by District Forum(New Delhi), directing the appellant to refund Rs.3300/- as fee, Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation charges. 2. In nut-shell the brief facts are that on 08.06.2006 a baby was born and the doctors directed the complainant for specific tests to ascertain the genitalai of the baby. The doctor further suggested following case. (i) Sodium, serum (ii) Potassium, serum (iii) Buccal simear/Barr Bodie (iv) Chromosome (Karyctype) 3. The baby was borne at Ram Chand Memorial Nursing Home, which advised that the tests to be conducted by the appellant/OP. Consequently on 09.06.2006 the baby was taken to the laboratory of the appellant for aforesaid tests which charged Rs.3300/-. Respondent/complainant was asking for the report and every time it was directed that the report will be given on 29.06.2006. On this date t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) Complainant Sh. Anil Khanna has filed this complaint against the OP for return of Rs.8,01,000/- received from the complainant by the respondent for providing agreed services but committed gross deficiency of service, compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for mental agony, pain and harassment etc. and litigation cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. 2) The marriage ceremony of complainants daughter was scheduled to be solemnized on 06.05.2011 following which the complainant decided to engage the services of respondent company which represented to have immense market reputation in providing works of painting, props, accessories, floral, fabric and linen and other related works including generators and lighting. The respondent promised to make various wedding functions such as Bhajan Sandhya (on 29.04.2011), Sagan (on 04.05.2011) Mehndi/Ladies Sangeet (on 05.05.2011) and finally wedding ceremony on 06.05.2011, a resounding success and memorable. Accordingly Mr. Vikas Gututi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Avtar Pennathur, Member: (1) This is a complaint dated 25.9.89 filed by 'B' Type Ground Floor Flats Owners of Neelamber Apartments Pitam Pura, Delhi. The construction of this Group Housing Complex for retired/serving personnel had been undertaken under Self Financing Scheme by the Air Force Naval Housing Board in 1983. The grievance of the complainants is that all the allottees were charged equal tentative cost of the flats irrespective of the fact whether the flat was in the ground floor or at the top floor. Scooter garrages at an additional cost of Rs. 5,000/- were provided to the upper Ground Flat owners. (2) It is alleged that the plinth area for 3 scooter garrages each of 26 sq. ft., an area of 78 sq ft. has been taken away from the ground floor flat plinth area and that this must be adequately compensated. Besides, the cost escalation from Rs. 87,000/- to Rs. 1,16,940/- per flat must be corrected to the cost of level of April, 1987. (3) The respondent in its reply has stated that...
Tag this Judgment!