Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Barkat Ali Zaidi: 1. The facts of the case are that on 30.5.2005 the complainant had taken a loan of Rs.3,10,000/- from the OP Citi Bank payable in 48 EMIs of each of Rs.9106/-. Since the complainant appellant failed to fulfill his promise, the bank reframed the payment plan; according to which the complainant was to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- in all and in turn the bank promised that post dated EMI cheques, which bank had obtained from him in advance, will not be presented for encashment and no dues certificate would be sent in due course. A cheque of Rs.80,000/-, which was issued in favour of the bank towards the re-payment of the loan became dishonoured for the reason that bank encashed one of the EMI cheque of Rs.9106/- due to which funds arranged for encashment of cheque of Rs.80,000/- had become insufficient. Subsequently this dispute was settled between the parties and the bank assured the complainant to issue no due certificate with blank security cheques but failed, the complain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. The facts of the case are that the complainant for the academic year 2006-07 took admission in August, 2006 in OP Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan for one year diploma course in Hotel Management, and for which he deposited as fees an amount of Rs. 20,000 on 31.8.2006. The complainant met with an accident and his leg was fractured. He lodged an FIR under Sections 279/337, IPC in connection of accident with the Police, the copy of which and a photograph of his fractured leg are available on file. The complainants case is that he contacted the OP several times and requested the OP to return the fee amount, which the OP declined. The complainant, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum with a prayer that the OP be directed to refund him Rs. 20,000 and a compensation of an amount of Rs. 10,000. 2. The OP opposed the claim and filed the written statement alleging the Information Brochure for the academic year 2006-07 supplied to the candida...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Salma Noor, member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.10.2005 passed by the District Forum North, Old Civil Supply Building, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in complaint case No.263/03 wherein the District Forum directed the appellant respondent to withdraw the impugned bill and to issue a fresh bill after ensuring service of show cause notice and to pay Rs.500/- as a costs of litigation. 2. Along with the appeal, an application under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act for condonation of delay has also been filed. We thought that before we assail the order of the District Forum, it will be proper to dispose of the delay condonation application. 3. Notice was issued to the respondent, but none appeared on behalf of the respondent inspite of service. 4. We have heard Miss Arti Bansal, Counsel for the appellant on delay condonation application and perused the application along with the record. 5. We have to mention here that it is a very carelessly drafted application. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Salma Noor, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.10.2005 passed by the District Forum North, Old Civil Supply Building, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in complaint case No. 263/03 wherein the District Forum directed the appellant-respondent to withdraw the impugned bill and to issue a fresh bill after ensuring service of show-cause notice and to pay Rs. 500 as a costs of litigation. 2. Along with the appeal, an application under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act for condonation of delay has also been filed. We thought that before we assail the order of the District Forum, it will be proper to dispose of the delay condonation application. 3. Notice was issued to the respondent, but none appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of service. 4. We have heard Miss Arti Bansal, Counsel for the appellant on delay condonation application and perused the application along with the record. 5. We have to mention here that it is a very carelessly drafted application....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Salma Noor, Member, J. 1. This appeal has been filed before this Commission on 16.11.2009 with a delay of 166 days by the appellant Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., the respondent before the District Forum against the order dated 1.4.2009 by which District Forum order the appellant to pay Rs.2,48,400/- as claim amount and Rs.90,000/- as mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards the costs of litigation. 2.Along with the appeal, an application under section 15 of the CPC for condonation of delay has also been filed. 3. We have heard Shri Yogesh Kumar, Advocate proxy for Sh. Sameer Nandwani, Counsel for the appellant and Shri Abhishek, Counsel for the respondent on delay condonation application. 4. It is the contention of the appellant Counsel that he has not received the copy of the impugned order and came to know about the order only on 8.10.2009 when he received notice of the execution and thereafter he seeks permission to file the appeal from the Head Office and the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Barkat Ali Zaidi: 1. The short facts of the case are that a three wheeler, registered in the name of OP-I whose financer was OP-2 was purchased by the Complainant on 10.5.2007 from both the OPs for an amount of Rs.2,22,000/- by making advance payment of Rs.50,000/- to OP-1. Out of this consideration amount Rs.1,72,000/- was financed by OP No.2, the Financer and the remaining amount was to be paid in installments within 24 months @ Rs.8550/- per month. Subsequently the complainant paid the dealer OP no.1 Rs.36,665/-. 2. In June, 2009 the complainant came to know that the vehicle purchased by him con not be transferred and registered by the Transport Authority in his name for the reason that the vehicle is of `J Model meant for the sale to a particular section, to which the complainant did not belong. 3. The complainant therefore filed a civil suit No.531 of 2007 in the court of Civil Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi against both the OPs seeking permanent and mandatory induction against them wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Salma Noor, Member: 1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 directed against the order dated 31-08-2010, passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum (North-East), Nand Nagri, Delhi whereby the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint of the Complainant and directed that the OPs- I, II, III and IV to jointly or severally pay to the complainant Rs.20,000/- alongwith interest as per post office rules till payment and further the OPs- I, II, III and IV are directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation to the Complainant. 2. The appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of the delay of 247 days in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard Mr Anmol, Counsel for Appellant and Mr. Sandip Dahiya, Proxy Advocate for Mr. S.D. Dixit, Counsel for Respondent and perused the application. 4. The applicant submitted in his application that the certified copy of the order 31-08-2010 was received on 04-10-2010. Thereafter fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President: 1. The facts of the case are that the complainant obtained comprehensive insurance policy from OP-2 Insurance Co. for his maruti car for an insured value of Rs.3,88,062/- w.e.f. 28th july, 2006 to 19th july, 2007. The vehicle met with an accident and the complainant spent Rs.57,756/- for its repair. He filed before the OP Insurance Co. his claim vide Claim Form (Annexure-A) for the re-imbursement of the amount of Rs.57,756/-, which the OP Co. repudiated vide letter (copy Annexure A-5) dated 25.7.2007, on the ground that on verification of the Driving License of the Driver Shri `Gajraj Singh, it was established that the driving license was fake while the policy schedule under the driver clause provided that the person who is driving the vehicle at the time of accident should hold an effective driving license. 2. The complainant, therefore, filed a claim before the District Forum with a prayer that the OP be directed to pay him Rs.57,756/- spent on repair of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
BARKAT ALI ZAIDI, PRESIDENT, J. 1. The complainant Company is a registered Company engaged in the business of off-shore and on-shore drilling on contracts. The complainant obtained Marine Hull Policy from the OP Insurance Co. for a period of one year w.e.f. 16.6.1999 to 15.6.2000 sum of Insurance being Rs.4,72,50,000/-. On 11.6.2000 a Rig was damaged due to an accident in Assam, and the complainant sent its intimation to OP Insurance Co. on 16.6.2000. The O.P. appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.13,24,886/-. 2. The complainant in his claim, lodged before the OP, claimed loss of an amount of Rs.26,76,725/-. Pending claim and before the O.P. could decide it, the complainant on 24.3.2005 filed the present complaint before this Commission alleging deficiency on the part of the OP with a prayer that the O.P. be directed to pay him Rs.36,60,250/- along with interest @ 15% towards the loss and compensation of an amount of Rs.10 lakh plus litigation costs. 3. The OP ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Salma Noor, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant (complainant in District Forum) on 16.6.2011 against District Forum order dated 11.5.2011 in complaint case No. 163/2010. We have heard the appeal at the admission stage. Appellant was present during the hearing in person. 2. The appellants case is that he has cooking gas connection No. 5071 38430 Code No. 7709 of respondent No. 1 M/s. Ashwani Enterprises (Gas Agency) who is distributor of respondent No. 2, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The appellants contention is that he has been facing problem to make booking for supply of gas due to irresponsible and callous behaviour of respondent No. 1 which amounts to serious deficiency in service, and has claimed compensation of Rs. 20 lakh along with litigation cost for harassment, mental tension and agony. 3. The respondent No. 1 filed his reply assailing the complainants case on two groundsone, that the complainant has concealed material facts and being resident of locali...
Tag this Judgment!