Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
(Order) R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.01.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum"), in Complaint Case No.32/2012. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, allowed the complaint of the complainant/respondent and directed the O.P./appellant (Insurance Company) to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant along with interest @ 06% p.a. from the filing of the complaint till date of payment and also to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation within period of two months from the date of order, otherwise the amount would be payable along with interest @ 9% p.a. 2. In nutshell the facts of the case of the complainant/respondent before the District Forum are : that the complainant/respondent is owner of vehicle Bolaro bearing registration No.C.G.09-5277 and the said vehicle was insured with the O.P./appellant. The insurance of the vehicle was effectiv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
(Order) R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This order will govern disposal of Appeal No FA/13/226 as well as Appeal No. FA/13/245, which have been preferred respectively by the O.P. / Navkar Marketing (I.) Pvt. Ltd., and complainant (Smt. Harnaam Kaur) of Complaint Case No.1077/2011 against the order dated 28.02.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum?), whereby the complaint filed by the complainant, has been allowed in part OPs have been directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service, interest, unfair trade practice and mental agony and also Rs.2,000/- towards Advocate fees and cost of litigation, within one month from the date of order. For the purpose of convenience, hereinafter in this order, the parties will be referred as per their original nomenclature in the complaint case. The original of this order be retained in the file of Appeal No. FA/13/226 and its copy be placed in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
(Order) R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 27.07.2012, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kabirdham / Kawardha (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No.04/2012. By the impugned judgment, the learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the complainant/appellant and awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the O.P./respondent as cost of litigation and advocate fees from the complainant/appellant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case of the complainant/appellant before the District Forum are as under:- 3. That the complainant/appellant is owner of a vehicle Tata Truck LPT 2515 CEX bearing registration No. C.G.04-J.A.-3730. The complainant/appellant purchased the said vehicle with the help of financial assistance by obtaining loan from the O.P./respondent to the tune of Rs.11,25,000/- and the instalments of the loan were to be repaid in 56 monthly instalments. The agreement was effective from 20.07.2007 to 20.02.20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Oral (Order) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.11.2012, passed District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhamtari (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.42/2011, whereby the complaint of the respondent / complainant, has been partly allowed. 2. The appellant/O.P. has preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 05.11.2012, passed by the District Forum and also filed application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties on the application for condonation of delay and have also perused the record of the District Forum. 4. In Revision Petition No.1616 of 2011 - National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shri P. Rangaswamy and anr., decided on 11.11.2013, Hon'ble National Commission held thus : "8. In Ram Lal and others Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed :- It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
(Order) R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.09.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhamtari (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.13/2011, whereby the complaint of the appellant / complainant, has been dismissed, as not proved. 2. The case of the complainant before the District Forum in brief are that the complainant is resident of Ramsagar Para, Dhamtari and is agriculturist by profession. His father Shri Raghunandan Prasad Sharma, is having one acre land, his son Navin Sharma (minor) is having 2.37 hectare land, his mother Smt. Kumari Bai Sharma is having 0.41 hectare land and his nephew Ravi Sharma (minor) is also having 0.41 hectare land at village Siraudkala, Patwari Halka No.65/2, Revenue Circle Sihava, Tahsil Nagari, District - Dhamtari. The complainant looks after all agricultural lands of his father, mother, minor son and his nephew. On 14.06.2010, the complainant went to office of the O.P. fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Oral (Order) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.08.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.01/2012, whereby the complaint of the appellant / complainant, has been dismissed. 2. The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 23.08.2012, passed by the District Forum and also filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for all the parties on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay and have also perused the record of the District Forum. 4. In Revision Petition No.1616 of 2011 - National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shri P. Rangaswamy and anr., decided on 11.11.2013, Hon'ble National Commission held thus : "8. In Ram Lal and others Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Oral (Order) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.10.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.131/2010, whereby the complaint of the appellant / complainant, has been partly allowed. 2. The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 25.10.2010, passed by the District Forum and also filed application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for both the parties on the application for condonation of delay and have also perused the record of the District Forum. 4. In Revision Petition No.1616 of 2011 - National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shri P. Rangaswamy and anr., decided on 11.11.2013, Hon'ble National Commission held thus : "8. In Ram Lal and others Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed :- It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
(Order) R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This order will govern disposal of Appeal No.FA/13/294 as well as Appeal No.FA/13/307, which have been preferred respectively by the complainant and OPs of Complaint Case No.35/2012 against the order dated 30.03.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum?), whereby the complaint filed by the complainant has been allowed and OPs have been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,926/- to the complainant within two months from the date of order along with interest @ 12% w.e.f. 27.04.2005 till date of payment and also to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation. It is further directed that if the OPs will not pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant within two months from the date of the order, the said amount is payable along with interest @ 18% p.a. For the purpose of convenience, hereinafter in this order, the parties will be referred as pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
(Order) R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.04.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (henceforth referred to "District Forum") in complaint case no.66/2010, whereby the appellants / OPs have been jointly and severally directed that the amount of Rs.60,662/-, which was paid by the complainant / respondent be adjusted from the bill of month of June and July, 2010 on the basis of previous 5 months' average bill and after adjustment, if any amount is refundable, balance amount be returned to the respondent with interest @ 6% p.a. and also awarded Rs.2,000/- towards advocate fee and cost of litigation within a period of two months from the date of order. If the amount is not paid by the OPs within the stipulated period, the same will carry interest @ 6% p.a. 2. The case of the respondent / complainant before the District Forum, are that the complainant / respondent obtained three electric connections in his premises and ser...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
(Order) R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.10.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.CC/09/64, whereby the complaint of the appellant / complainant, has been dismissed on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation and the complainant does not come in the category of consumer. Feeling aggrieved by that order, this appeal has been filed by the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant before the District Forum in brief are that the complainant Koushalya Fatnani is resident of near Ram Mandir, Shanti Nagar, Raipur and she was having a Grinding Unit namely Vinayak Pisai Udyog at Shanti Nagar, Raipur. She had obtained electric connection bearing No.143151 for running that Unit from the OP Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (henceforth called "Electricity Board") and a meter was installed. The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum, w...
Tag this Judgment!