Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
(Order) R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.08.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.220/2009, whereby the complaint of the respondent No.1/ complainant, has been allowed. 2. The appellant/O.P.No.1 has preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 07.08.2012 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 suffi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
1. This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the OPs/appellants against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum?) on 9.11.2012 in Complaint Case No. 34/2012, whereby the complaint of the complainant/respondent, has been allowed in part and District Forum has cancelled the electricity bill issued for the month of January, 2012 being erroneous. The OPs/appellants have been directed : (i) to provide revised electricity bill for electricity connection service No. 52-86-71-02-000732 on the basis of average meter reading prior to two years from February, 2012 within a month, (ii) to pay compensation of Rs. 2,000 for physical and mental agony, (iii) to pay Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation to the complainant/respondent. The complainant/respondent, has been directed to pay the revised electric bill within 15 days of providing electric bill by the appellants and the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Veena Misra, Member 1. The appeal in hand has been preferred by dissatisfied consumer against order dated 03.02.2012 in Complaint Case No.13/2011, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kabirdham /Kawardha (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to District Forum for short) whereby the complaint was only partly allowed and OP no.1 was directed to pay Rs.20,338/to the complainant within 2 months of the date of order towards compensation for loss of crop with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of complaint and in case of default within the stipulated period, interest @ 9% would be payable from the date of order. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the complainant is owner of agricultural land and had obtained Kisan Credit Card for obtaining loan for agricultural purpose. Credit limit was Rs.2,00,000/(Two Lacs) and his account no. was 30381009302. The complainant had obtained loan of Rs.1,75,000/from OP no.1 on 20.04.2009 under the Kisan Credit Card for K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Veena Misra, Member 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 05.07.2012, passed in Complaint No.08/2008 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jagdalpur (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short) whereby the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the complainant has preferred this appeal. Relevant facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that complainant and her husband D.L.Netam had joint saving account No.0110060145.with OP no.2 Bank. Complainants husband had obtained insurance cover from OP3 under S.B.I. Life Super Suraksha Yojana. Premium for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006 and 01.2006 to 31.3.2007 was debited from the aforesaid account by OP No.2 and transferred to OP No.3 insurer. After death of her husband Shri D.L.Netam on 29.06.2007, the complainant both orally as well as in writing requested for payment of Rs.2,00,000/towards...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Order (Oral) S.C. Vyas, President, J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 08.11.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter called District Forum for short) in Complaint Case No.213/2010, whereby the complaint of the respondent/complainant against the appellants, has been allowed and the appellants have been directed to pay Rs.5,000/by way of compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/as cost of litigation to the respondent/complainant. 2. In nut shell, the facts of the case before the District Forum are that on 09.06.2009 respondent / complainant purchased a railway ticket for journey on 10.06.2009 by Amarkantak Express, train No.2814 from Katni to Durg as sleeper class and paid Rs.233/. Later on, it was observed by the respondent/complainant that the said ticket was not confirmed and no berth was allotted to him. He requested to T.T.I to provide a berth and when he refused, then the respondent/complainant approached to Chief Ticket Inspec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
V.K. Patil, Member, J. 1. This order will govern disposal of appeal nos. FA/12/48 and FA/12/49, preferred by the appellants herein, who were respectively OP and complainant, in the complaint case no. 114/2011 filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja, Ambikapur (hereinafter called District Forum for short), whereby complaint of the complainant was partly allowed by order dated 05.01.2012, directing OP Bank to return the tractor and trolley to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.5,000/towards mental and physical harassment and also to pay cost of litigation Rs.1,000/. OP was also directed that since the tractor and trolley were kept in its possession for long time without getting order from a competent court, so it should bear further installments and interest as per document D 1(6). It was also directed that OP would adjust Rs.4,000/in the account of the complainant, being the amount of compensation as awarded in para 10(2) and 10(3) of the order. H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
S. C. Vyas, President 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 27.04.12, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called District Forum for short) in complaint case No.169/2011, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein was partly allowed and the OPs / respondents have been directed to pay Rs.6,500/jointly or severally along with interest @ 7 % p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint and also to pay Rs.1,000/as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/as cost of litigation. The prayer for refund of cost price on account of unfair trade practice of the respondents was not allowed and therefore this appeal has been preferred for enhancement of the awarded amount by allowing the aforesaid prayer also. 2. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 Sairam Automobiles and Services Pvt. Ltd. is the authorized dealer of Tata Motors at Bhilai, District Durg and respondent No.2 is the manufacturer of Tata Indica Vista Aura Quadrajet ABS model car, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
S.C. Vyas, President. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 14.08.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Koriya, Baikunthpur (C.G.) (hereinafter called District Forum for short) in Complaint Case No.34/2012, whereby the appellant/Insurance Company, has been directed to pay Rs.4,28,702/to the respondent no.1/complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of claim till date of payment and also to pay Rs.2,000/as cost of litigation. 2. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that tractor having engine No.N.G.N.L.1465 and chassis No.N.G.N.L.1465 was purchased by the complainant from the dealer/respondent No.2 and thereafter was got insured from the appellant/Insurance Company, for a period between 19.11.2010 to 18.11.2011. The said tractor was stolen by someone in the night intervening between 22.09.2011 to 23.09.2011. Police was intimated on 23.09.2011 and thereafter the Insurance Company was intimated by fax on 05.10.2011 and by registered post on 07.10.2011...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
V.K. Patil, Member 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 19.06.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (herein after referred for short as District Forum) in Complaint Case No.178/2011, whereby complaint of the complainant, alleging deficiency in service against OP finance company owing to repossession of his vehicle, was allowed directing OP to pay compensation of Rs.1,01,680/- towards loss of income along with interest @ 6% p.a. from 30.04.2011 and also to pay the sale price of the questioned vehicle Rs.80,000/- with interest @ 6% from the date of filing complaint. OP was also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and cost of litigation Rs.2,000/-. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a Tata AC Van having registration no.C.G.04/JA3707,cost of which was Rs.2,40,895/-. Complainant had paid Rs.30,895/- as margin money and balance amount Rs.2,10,000/- was got financed from OP No.2 which was the zonal office of O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
S.C. Vyas, President. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 26.03.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhamtari (C.G.), (hereinafter called District Forum for short) in Complaint Case No.25/2011,, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein, has been partly allowed and respondent/Insurance Company has been directed to pay Rs.29,535/, if discharge voucher after signing, is sent by the complainant to it. It has further been directed by the District Forum that repairing bill along with supplementary estimates of the insured vehicle, be sent back by the Insurance Company to the Surveyor for reassessment, so that actual damages payable by the Insurance Company, can be assessed. 2. The grievance of the appellant/complaint before us is only this that after passing of the impugned order, the amount of Rs.29,535/, has been paid by the respondent/Insurance Company, but as no interest was awarded by the District Forum on this amount, so no interest has been paid by the r...
Tag this Judgment!