Court : Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
B.N. Sinha, President: 1. The complainant had filed this case claiming compensation for non-settlement of the insurance claim in respect of her Maruti Van stolen away on 15.12.1990. 2. The facts of the case as put in by the complainant may be briefly noticed. The complainant had purchased a Maruti Van bearing No. 4699 and she got it insured by the opposite party under Insurance Policy No. 3154050105119 dated 17.10.1990 for Rs. 1,00,000.00 for a period of one year. The van was stolen away on 15.12.1990 at Dehri-on-Sone and the information with regard thereto was filed at the Dehri-on-Sone P.S. on the basis of which Dehri-on-Sone P.S. Case No. 440/90 was registered. Information was given with regard thereto to the opposite party and the claim in respect thereof was also lodged. 3. According to the complainant in spite of several reminders, the Insurance Company did not settle the claim and therefore this case has been filed for a direction to the Insurance Company-opposite party to pay r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
B.N. Sinha, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 4th of October, 1994 passed by the District Forum, Hazaribagh in case No. 55 of 94 in which the appellant and the respondent No. 2 here were the opposite party and the respondent No. 1 here was the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The facts of the case as put in by the complainant may be briefly noticed. The complainant happens to be a simple literate unemployed person and he after taking training at Calcutta of the work of Lathe Machine wanted to install a Lathe machine in order to earn his livelihood. He therefore met the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Hazaribagh for registration of Small Scale Industrial Unit and got a registration certificate and his application for loan was forwarded by the Head Manager, District Industry Centre to the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India (hereinafter called the Bank), Singhrawan Branch, Hazaribagh, the opposite party No. 1, for financial assistance. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
B.N. Sinha, President: 1. The complainant has filed this case for compensation alleging negligence and deficiency in service against the opposite party in transportation of goods. 2. The facts of the case as put in by the complainant may be briefly noticed. The complainant is a dealer in steel products and is the proprietor of M/s. Singh Trading Company, Danapur. The opposite party are transporter who render service for carrying and transportation of goods from one place to another. On 6.7.91 the complainant purchased 10.25 tonnes of Iron Rods of different sizes and description worth Rs. 1,15,892.50 paise from Perfect Steel Products, Ranchi Branch and on 26.7.91 he booked his goods with M/s. Patna Gauhati Roadways, Ranchi opposite party No. 1 of which opposite party No. 2 to 4 are proprietors, for carrying them from Ranchi to Danapur. The opposite party agreed to receive the freight of Rs. 1800.00 at Danapur on delivery of the goods at Danapur. The goods were received by the opposite p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
B.N. Sinha, President 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 5.5.93 passed by the District Forum, Arah disposing of Complaint Case Nos. 32 and 33 of 93 by this common order. The appellants here were the opposite party and the respondents here were the complainants in the two respective cases before the District Forum. 2. The memo of appeal has been presented before this Commission on 6.8.93 i.e.; much after the expiry of the period of thirty days from the date of the impugned order and therefore an application under Rule 8(4) of the Bihar Consumer Protection Rules has been filed by the appellants stating the facts on which the appellants rely to satisfy this Commission that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the memo of appeal within the period specified u/Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act). It has been mentioned that the impugned order was forwarded to the Block Development Officer (appellant No. 3) by Memo No. 8/93 dated 10.5.93 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
B.N. Sinha, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 21st September, 1994 passed by the District Forum, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. 112 of 94 in which the appellant here was the opposite party and the respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The facts of the case as put in by the complainant may be briefly stated. Swarsati Devi (wife of the complainant Dr. Braj Kishore Singh) had taken three policies against her life and she paid the premium in respect thereof till her death. The first policy was for Rs. 35,000.00. The second policy dated 28.10.89 is for Rs. 65,000.00. The third policy dated 27.3.91 is for Rs. 75,000.00. Swarsati Devi died on 28.8.91 due to cancer of stomach. Her death was reported to LIC, the opposite party and the opposite party L.I.C. thereupon supplied to the complainant a form which was to be filed by him with details of the three policies and other details which the complainant did. Thereafter the opposite party made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
B.N. Sinha, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 2nd September, 1993 passed by the District Forum/Saran at Chapra in Complaint Case No. 144 of 92 in which the appellant here was the opposite party and the respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The facts of the case as put in by the complainant may be briefly noticed. The complainant had Telephone No. 2212 Chapra with S.T.D. facility. But since the complainant got the telephone connection the opposite party with a motive to vex the complainant used to send inflated and excessive bills in respect of his telephone. The complainant therefore filed application for withdrawal of the S.T.D. facility from his telephone. Subsequent thereto his telephone number was changed to 3213 and the S.T.D. facility was withdrawn. But in respect of this telephone number also he received inflated and excessive bills and for the period from 16.1.92 to 15.3.92 he received a bill for Rs. 867/- which was excessive ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
B.N. Sinha, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 13th April, 1994 passed by the District Forum, Palamu at Daltanganj in Complaint Case No. 7 of 1994 in which the appellant here was the opposite party and the respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum. 2. The facts of the case for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly noticed. On 20.4.93 the complainant sent by money order Rs. 275/- to Sitamarhi. The money order was posted at Babhandi Branch Post Office. But it did not reach Sitamarhi and hence the complainant on 11.9.93 made complaint with regard thereto which was received by the opposite party on 14.9.93. The opposite party found that the money order had not reached Sitamarhi. He issued duplicate money order on 20th January, 94, information regarding which was given to the complainant as well as the Post Master, Sitamarhi and the payee received the amount through that money order on 2.3.94. 3. As there was delay of about a year in the payme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
B.N. Sinha, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 17.3.94 passed by the District Forum, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 20 of 90 by which the case of the complainant was dismissed for default. The appellant here was the complainant and the respondent here was the opposite party before the District Forum. 2. The facts of the case for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly noticed. On information lodged by the complainant a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated by the Subdivisional Magistrate apprehending breach of piece for disconnecting the electric line of the complainant by the opposite party for non-payment of the dues. The complainant also filed Title Suit No. 239/88 against the opposite party and it appears that injunction was issued on 6.1.89 against the opposite party under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure restraining the opposite party, from disconnecting the electric connection of the complai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
B.N. Sinha, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 7th June 1995 passed by the District Forum, Patna in case No. 1004 in which the appellant here alongwith the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development. Authority (in short HUDA) was the opposite party and the respondent here was the complain, ant before the District Forum. 2. The facts of the case for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly stated. The complainant applied to the opposite party No. 1 the Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon, Haryana for a plot of land along with earnest money of Rs. 22,826/-. The complainant got an allotment letter dated 12.7.93 from the Estate Officer, HUDA opposite party No. 2, Gurgaon confirming the allotment of plot in Sector IX A and he was directed to pay Rs. 34,254/- more as allotment money within thirty days of the allotment letter. But as the complainant was undergoing treatment for heart desease at Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardeology, Patna and she could not arrange the allotme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
B.N. Sinha, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 7th September, 1993 passed by the District Forum, Siwan in Case No. 159 of 1993 in which the appellant here was the complainant and the respondent here was the opposite party before the District Forum. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint of the complainant by the impugned order against which the present appeal has been filed by the complainant. 2. The facts of the case for the disposal of this appeal may be briefly noticed. The complainant had ordered for 180 quintals of seeds of wheat worth Rs. 96,300/- and had paid Rs. 9,300/- through credit memo as advance in respect thereof. The seed which was supplied by the opposite party was defective and there was only 35% germination as a result of which the complainant asserts that he sustained loss of Rs. 80,000/-. 3. On being noticed the opposite party appeared and controverted the claim of the complainant challenging the maintainability of the case under the C...
Tag this Judgment!