Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 04.05.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No.159/2012. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant (complainant). 2. Briefly stated the facts of complaint are : that the appellant (complainant) had gone to Thailand with friend Satyavrat Sadani in the year 2011 as a tourist where he purchased a L.E.D. at a price of Rs.50,000/- from Indra Sound and Video Limited and he had also paid a sum of Rs.16,223/- as customs duty. The said T.V. worked properly only 1-2 months and thereafter it started creating problem. The appellant (complainant) contacted to the Bilaspur office, Raipur office and Delhi office of the respondents (OPs) from where mechanics came and repaired the T.V. but thereafter again it was having problem and the employees and officers of the Company were demanding a sum ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 30.01.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No.26/2009. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the respondent No.1 (complainant) and directed the appellant (O.P.No.1) to pay a sum of Rs.2,95,188.00/- to the respondent No.1 (complainant) along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till date of payment. The District Forum, has further directed the appellant (O.P.No.1) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for physical and mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the respondent No.2 (complainant) and to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation. 2. It is not in dispute that a Bolaro vehicle having registration No.C.G.15-B-2973, was purchased by the respondent No.1 (complainant) ant and was insured with appellant (O.P. No.1) Insurance Company for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 28.01.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No.1089/2011. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the respondent (complainant) and directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay a sum of Rs.1,92,905/- to the respondent (complainant) within a period of one month from the date of order as compensation along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 28.12.2011 till date of payment. The District Forum has further directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as advocate fees and cost of the litigation to the respondent (complainant). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the respondent (complainant) before the District Forum are : that the respondent (complainant) has purchased the vehicle bearing registratio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties for seeking direction to the opposite parties : (a) to indemnify complainant's loss of the insured item to the extent of Rs.62,32,950/- (Rupees Sixty Two Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Only) (b) to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the above amount from the date of loss to the date of payment (c) to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) towards mental, physical and financial loss (d) saddle the cost of litigation expenses, lawyer's fees on the opposite parties for instituting the instant complaint and approaching before this Commission and (e) grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble Commission deems fit and just under the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts of the complaint as per the complainant are : that the complainant is a public limited company having its regis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.06.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.88/2012. By the impugned order the complaint filed by the respondent No.1 (complainant) has been allowed against the appellant (O.P.No.2) and the District Forum has directed the appellant (O.P.No.2) to pay the respondent No.1 (complainant) the cost of 26.17 qtls. Swarna Dhan, which is the quantity of less production in the year as notified by the Government of Chhattisgarh as compensation within two months along with interest @ 6% p.a. from 09.08.2011 till date of payment, within two months from date of payment, otherwise the interest @ 09% would be payable, but the interest on interest would not be payable and the amount of interest would not be more than the principal amount. The District Forum, has further directed the appellant (O.P.No.2) to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties for seeking direction to the opposite parties : (a) to pay the price of the B.M.W. Rs.35,80,309/-, (b) to pay interest on the said amount @ 18% p.a. from 29.03.2013 till date of payment (c) to pay compensation for mental agony Rs.2,00,000/-, (d) to pay cost of litigation and other relief, which this Commission deems fit and just. 2. Brief facts of the complaint as per the complainant are : that the complainant is a reputed businessman and his business spread all over the State of Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh. The O.P. No.1 is manufacturer of B.M.W. Car and its office is situated at D.L.F. Cyber City, Phase “ 2, No.8, Tower B, 7th Floor, Gurgaon, Haryana and the O.P.Nos.2 and 3 are the authorized dealers of O.P.No.1 and their offices are situated at Raipur and Nagpur. The complainant purchased B.M.W.X .1 20 DX Line Car from O.P.No.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.10.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.563/2011. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the appellant (complainant). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are : the appellant (complainant) is owner of a goods carrying vehicle Pick Up Van bearing registration No.C.G.04/J.B. 6841 and its chassis no. is 91K60998 and engine no. is GA91K27480. The said vehicle was purchased with the financial help of respondent No.3 (O.P.No.3). The vehicle was insured with respondent No.1 and 2 (O.P.Nos.1 and 2) (Insurance Company). The policy number is 3003/57951968/00/00 and the policy was effective for the period from 27.10.2009 to 26.10.2010. On 23.07.2010, when driver of the appellant (complainant) Pradeep Naktore after delivery of goods returning back to Raipur and when he reached ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.10.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.167/2011. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the appellant (complainant) holding that the transaction between the parties, is commercial transaction, therefore, the appellant (complainant) is not a consumer and there is an agreement between the parties. There is a provision for the arbitration proceedings in the agreement executed between the parties, therefore, the District Forum, has no jurisdiction to hear the present matter. 2. Briefly stated the facts of complaint are that : that loan of Rs.1,75,00,000/- and Rs.75,00,000/- for purchase of the machine was obtained by the appellant (complainant) from the respondent (O.P.) and immovable property of the appellant (complainant), which is mentioned in the Schedule was mortgaged. The l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.03.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mahasamund (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.17/2012. By the impugned order, the complaint of the appellant (complainant) has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are : that the respondent (O.P.) offered for sale of tractor trolley (two wheelers) Hydraulic to the appellant (complainant) but the appellant (complainant) expressed his inability to deposit full amount at once then the respondent (O.P.) fixed price of Rs.1,30,000/- for the trolley and the facility was provided to the appellant (complainant) to deposit the same within a year in installments. The appellant (complainant) deposited a sum of Rs.14,101/- as first installment on 16.02.2009 and obtained trolley from the respondent (O.P.). He was continuously deposited the installments with the respondent (O.P.) as mentioned in para 3 which is as under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, filed by the appellant (complainant) is directed against the order dated 31.12.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.414/2012. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint are : that the appellant (complainant) Prabhudayal Kesharwani and Pramesh Kesharwani have separately applied and purchase house under Hire Purchase Scheme and requested to variation in the price, which is still in existence. In the pamphlet which was issued by the Chief Minister, Housing Minister and President, it is mentioned the houses will be made available by the Housing Board to the beneficial according to their convenience in 5-10-15 or 20 years easy installment. The price of the each house under Self Finance Scheme would be Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs...
Tag this Judgment!