Court : Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Gauhati
J.N. Sarma, President: 1. This appeal raises a short question, but an important question. The lady (complainant) engaged Prardumna Rai, General Secretary, BCMS Office, Near Rly. Station, R.K.B. Path, Dibrugarh, Assam to appear and conduct her case before the District Forum at Dibrugarh. That is available at Annexure-A. In terms of this authorization, the person concerned appeared before the District Forum, but the District Forum by relying on the provision of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, did not allow the person concerned to represent the lady. A bare look at Section 12 will show that it lays down the manner in which complaint shall be made. It does not speak of appearance of a person to conduct a case. Section 12 in its entirety is quoted below : 12. Manner in which complaint shall be made.A complaint, in relation to any goods sold or delivered or any service provided, may be filed with a District Forum by, (a)the consumer to whom such goods are sold or delivered or such...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Gauhati
K. Laskar, Member: 1. This appeal is against the order dated 10.6.1996 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhubri in C.D. Case No. 20/1995 awarding compensation. The case in brief is that the respondent/complainant posted one letter through Speed Post in the office of the appellant-Post Master, Dhubri on 12.8.1995 to be delivered at Guwahati. The said letter was delivered at Guwahati on 18.8.1995. Respondents contention is that the said letter should have been delivered on 14.8.1995 at Guwahati. Respondent further contends that the last date of receipt of the letter by the addressee is 16.8.1995 and, therefore, there was delay in delivering the letter by the appellants. As a result of delay in delivering the letter to the addressee, before 16.8.1996, the respondent/complainant suffered loss. The respondent/complainant thereafter, claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for deficiency of service from the appellant/opposite party. 2. In the written statement filed by the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Gauhati
K. Laskar, Member: 1. This appeal is against the judgment dated 30.10.1996 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tezpur in CPA Case No. 21/1995 awarding compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent/petitioner. 2. The case in brief is that the respondent/petitioner sent Rs. 2,000/- by TMO to his daughter at Aligarh University, Aligarh on 26.7.1995 through the Tezpur Head Post Office, but the TMO was not delivered in time. When the respondent/petitioner brought this to the notice of the appellant/opposite party on 17.8.1995, an inquiry was held by the appellant/opposite party and found that the TMO was delivered to the payee on 3.8.1995 and this fact was intimated to the respondent/petitioner on 25.9.1995. In the meantime, the respondent/petitioner is reported to have sent his son to Aligarh to bring his daughter who had to stay outside the hostel. As his daughter had to be brought by his son from Aligarh, he had to incur financial loss. Besides, he had to face harassment. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Gauhati
J.N. Sarma, Member: 1. These Cross Appeal Nos. CA 139/97 and CA 150/97 are taken up together for disposal by single order as they arise from the same impugned judgment dated 29.8.1997 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kamrup, (for short, District Forum) in C.P. Case No. 84/96. In the first one Shri L. Talukdar, the complainant in the original case in the District Forum is the appellant and in the second one Union of India, that is, the Telecommunication Department, and Telecom District Manager, Guwahati, who were opposite parties in the District Forum are the appellants. For our convenience we shall discuss the points raised in both the appeals together. 2. The facts of the case in the complaint adjudicated by the District Forum, which are common in both the appeals before us, are as follows : Complainant Mr. L. Talukdar, Advocate, is the subscriber of Telephone No. 524398 without STD facility at Guwahati, which was in operation since 18.4.1995. The complainants first grie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Gauhati
J.N. Sarma, President: 1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Advocate for the appellant assisted by Mr. B.C. Das, learned Advocate and Mr. A. Goswami, learned Advocate for the respondent. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 12.8.1994 passed by the District Forum, Sonitpur at Tezpur in C.P. Case No. 26/93. By impugned judgment the District Forum awarded some compensation and also directed that the revised bill be prepared on the basis of average bills. The period is from 16.4.1993 to 15.6.1993. 3. The law has been settled by the following decisions : (i)I (1991) CPJ 48 (NC), The District Manager, Telephones and Ors. v. Niti Saran; (ii)II (1991) CPJ 286 (NC), Telecom District Manager, Patna v. M/s. Kalyanpur Cement Ltd., wherein it has been held that the Court or the Tribunal does not have the power to give a direction to the authority to prepare the revised bill on the basis of average bills. Accordingly, that part of the direction given by the District Forum is to b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Gauhati
J.N. Sarma, President: 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31.5.1996 passed by the District Forum, Sonitpur, Tezpur in C.P. Case No. 28/94. By the aforesaid order, the complaint was dismissed by the learned District Forum. 2. The complainant is a beneficiary of the Employees State Insurance Corporation, Tezpur. He claimed for reimbursement of some amount with penal interest alongwith compensation for harassment as well as for litigation expenses. 3. The bone of contention between the parties, is that the ESI Court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter, as the jurisdiction of the other Forums have been ousted by Section 75(3) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. Section 75(3) is quoted below : No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question or dispute as aforesaid or to adjudicate on any liability which by or under, this Act is to be decided by a Medical Board, or by a Medical Appellate Tribunal or by the Employees Insura...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Gauhati
J.N. Sarma, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the judgment dated 6.9.1996 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short, District Forum), Kamrup in C.P. Case No. 107/95. 2. To state briefly the facts of the case are as follows. Complainant Shri Anil Baruah (respondent herein) took a mediclaim policy from opposite party (for short O.P.) Insurance Company (appellant herein) covering his four family members including his son Sumeet Baruah for a period of one year only from 7.2.1995 to 6.2.1996. In May, 1995 his son Sumeet fell ill and he was admitted to a private hospital for medical treatment. It was detected by the doctor that the complainants son was suffering from bleeding internal morrhoids (internal piles). He had undergone treatment by blood transmission followed by surgical operation. The opposite party Insurance Company was duly informed of the hospitalisation a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Gauhati
J.N. Sarma, President: 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.10.1997 passed by the District Consumers Dispute Redressal Forum, Nagaon in CP Case No. 16/97 ordering payment of Rs. 21,545/- with 18% interest with effect from 17.3.1996. 2. The brief facts are that the complainant before the District Forum on 10.1.1995 alongwith his wife and daughter took mediclaim policies from the present appellant by paying premium and other charges amounting to Rs. 709/- for the period from 10.1.1995 to 9.1.1996. After some days he felt ailment and consulted Dr. S.R. More, a medical specialist at Haiborgaon, Nagaon. Dr. More advised him to go to Appolo Hospital, Madras for better investigation and treatment. Accordingly the complainant went to Appolo Hospital and got him treated there and certain investigations were done and operated for cholecystectomy (gall bladder operation). The report of discharge from Appolo Hospital inter alia states as follows: (i) A39-year-old male Dr. M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Gauhati
J.N. Sarma, Member: 1. This complaint petition was filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by complainant Sri Manoj Jain alleging excessive and exhorbitant billing of the local calls including STD calls by the Department of Telecommunication, Guwahati, in respect of his telephone No. 33357 (new) 31258 (old) at Guwahati. Although the learned Counsel for the opposite parties, i.e., Telecommunication Department, was given sufficient time no written version or objection was filed by the opposite parties. An interim order dated 9.10.1993 was passed by this Commission after hearing both the parties. As this order was not complied with the Commission vide order dated 12.3.1994 directed the office to communite the order dated 9.10.1993 to the Telecom District Manager after receipt of the complainants petition under Section 27 of the C.P. Act. The complaint came up for final hearing on 14.8.1999. 2. The facts of the case may be stated briefly as follows. The complainants tel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Gauhati
J.N. Sarma, Member: 1. This is an appeal preferred by Dr. Gokul Bora, the appellant herein and complainant in the original case, against the judgments dated 14.11.1995 and 20.3.1998 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kamrup, (for short, District Forum) in C.P. Case Nos. 178/94 and 5/97 (Misc.) respectively. The General Manager, Kamrup Telecom District, Guwahati and another are respondents in this appeal. 2. The facts of the case may be stated briefly as follows : Complainant Dr. Gokul Bora (appellant herein) filed a complaint in the District Forum with a prayer for quashing the telephone bill dated 1.3.1994 against telephone No. 546879. This is the ten bi-monthly bill with a whopping demand of Rs. 14,624/- against call charges, whereas there were no call charge at all in the previous bills dated 1.11.1992, 1.1.1993, 1.7.1993(A) 1.7.1993(B), 1.9.1993 and mere Rs. 60/-, Rs. 50/- and Rs. 2/- only in the bills dated 1.3.1993, 1.5.1993 and 1.1.1994 respectively. After hearing bo...
Tag this Judgment!