Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Salma Noor, Member: 1. This appeal by the OP of the case No.809/2007 is directed against the order dated 4.7.2011 of the CDRF (North West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi vide which OP was directed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) being the assured sum under policy with interest @ 10% from the date of lodging of complaint till its realization. The complainant was also awarded Rs.10,000/- being costs of litigation. 2. The appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. According to the appellant himself there is a delay of 598 days in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard Sh. Ms. Jyoti Divya, Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Suraj Jaiswal, Counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 4. The grounds for the condonation of delay are reproduced below:- i) œThe order passed by District Forum on 4.7.2011 and the case was being defended by Advocate Ms. Neeru Garg on behalf of the appellant. It is submitted that the said counsel ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
N.P. Kaushik, Member: 1. This appeal by Opposite Party (in short the OP) of the case No.1409/2009 is directed against the order dated 6.7.2011 passed by the District Forum (North West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi by which the complaint was allowed OP was directed to pay to the complainant Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 14.7.2008 till its payment. The OP was also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment agony along with Rs.20,000/- as costs of litigation. 2. Facts in brief are that the deceased took a Life Insurance Policy known as œJanta Personal Accidental Insurance Policy? from the appellant Insurance Company on 12.2.1998 which commenced w.e.f. 14.2.198 and valid upto13.2.2010. The deceased was 61 years old at that time. He died on 18.6.2008. The cause of death was 10% TBSA (thermal burn along with facial and respiratory burn? leading to cardio respiratory arrest). The death certificate was issued by LNJP Hospital. Prior to this the deceased...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.A. Saddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of C.P.Act, 1986 against order dated 3.9.2010 passed by Ld. DCDRF (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi “ 92 in complaint case No.475/2009. Facts leading to the filing of the appeal are noted below : 2)Appellants son namely Amrit Lal has taken a whole life insurance cover policy bearing No.327164968 for a sum of Rs.2,34,511/- for the period 29.8.2007 to 28.8.2008 and paid premium of Rs.5000/- (appellant is the mother and nominee of Sh. Amrit Lal). Unfortunately, during the subsistence of the policy Amrit Lal died on 2.5.2008. Information of the death of the insured was given to the respondent Insurance Company through Smt. Poonam Sharma, Respondent No.2 on 3.5.2008. Insurance claim was duly filed by appellant/nominee. Respondent No.1 through its letter dated 8.5.2008 demanded original policy documents, original death certificate, claimants statement “ form A, Photo I-D, attending Physicians statement &l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.A. Saddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of C.P.Act, 1986 against order dated 1.8.2012 passed by District Forum-VII (South-West) in complaint case No.638/2009. 2. Relevant facts of the case are that appellant filed a consumer complaint before the aforesaid District Forum alleging that he paid Rs.2,25,000/- towards membership fees to the respondent and was promised a plot of 2000 sq.ft. willbe allotted to him at the earliest. 3. It was alleged that the appellant/complainant received a letter from respondent demanding Rs.30,000/- towards documents charges, stamp paper fee etc. for purposes of allotment of the said plot to the appellant was dis-satisfied with the demand and filed a consumer complaint alleging commitment of the fraud by respondents. The appellant requested refund of the membership fees alongwithinterest and compensation and cost etc. In reply to notice respondents appeared before the Ld. District Forum and pleaded that as per terms a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Salma Noor, Member: 1. This appeal by the OP of the case No.372/2007 is directed against the order dated 24.4.2012 of the CDRF II, Udyog Sadan, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi vide which the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the OP to handover the possession of the plot to the complainant without any encumbrance and chages over it. Parties shall bear their own cost. 2. The appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. According to the appellant himself there is a delay of 95 days in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard Sh. Manish Kumar Chaudhary, Counsel for the Appellant and Shri R.R. Gupta, Counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 4. It is admitted by the applicant in its applications that there is a delay of 95 days in filing the appeal. The only reason given by the appellant/OP is the case file was misplaced in shifting of the office and the same was recovered on 10.9.2012. This reason does not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Salma Noor, Member: 1. This appeal by the complainant of the case No.1084/2008 is directed against the order dated 7.5.2012 of the CDRF-VI, M Block, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi vide which OP was directed to refund Rs.2,36,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of booking till date of payment along with compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards harassment including litigation charges. 2. The appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. According to the appellant himself there is a delay of 240 days in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard Sh. Pranav, Counsel for the Appellant and Shri R.N.Gupta, Counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 4. It is admitted by the applicant in its applications that there is a delay of 240 days in filing the appeal. The only reason given by the appellant/OP is that appellant company shifted from Narian Manzil to Barakhamba Road. This reason does not provide any justified ground for condonati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Salma Noor, Member: 1. This appeal by the OP of the case No. 170/2010 is directed against the order dated 09.04.2013 of the CDRF (Central District), Kashmere Gate, Delhi whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed. 2. The appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. According to the appellant himself there is a delay of 207 days in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard Sh. Hemant Gupta, Counsel for the appellant and Sh. Sumit Kumar, counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 4. It is admitted by the applicant in its applications that there is a delay of 207 days in filing the appeal. The only reason given by the appellant is that the impugned order dt. 09.04.2013 was never served upon him. Copy of the order was not received by the appellant from the Honble Forum as per prescribed rules. This reason does not provide any justified ground for condonation of such a long delay in filing the appeal. The Law of limitation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
N.P. Kaushik, Member (Judicial):1. We have heard Ms Arti Bansal, Counsel for the Appellant and Ms Geeta Kumari, respondent in person. 2. Present appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.02.2013 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi. Vide impugned orders, the complainant / respondent, Ms Geeta Kumari was awarded damages to the tune of Rs. 1 lac and litigation expenses of Rs. 25,000/-. 3. Facts in brief are that the complainant, Ms Geeta Kumari got herself registered with OP/DDA for the allotment of a flat in a scheme floated by DDA in the year 1979. She was allotted flat bearing No. 98, Sector A-9, Pocket-4, Group-I, Narela, Delhi in a draw of lots held on 15.5.98. Admittedly, the complainant deposited the amounts demanded from her by the DDA from time to time, as per schedule. It is also not in dispute that the complainant instead of taking physical possession of the flat, requested for a flat in a different locality. Complainant al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.C. Jain, Member: 1) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dt. 12.03.2010 passed in Complaint Case No. 352/07, by District Forum (North) Tis Hazari, Delhi. 2) Facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant has filed the complaint against the OPs before the District Forum alleging that, appellant/complainant is a small partnership firm and Sh. Ratan Poddar is its one of the partners and he is earning his livelihood by means of self-employment and is carrying on the trading of Ayurvedic Medicines. The Respondent-2/OP-2 invited and made booking in the ever 1989 for booking of shops/spaces in the proposed building known as œDCM Complex? at Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. One Smt. Manmohan Kaur and Col. A.P.Singh made booking of a shop for 400 Sq. Ft. Area on the ground floor in the said complex for a total consideration of Rs. 666400/- and the said booking was made @ Rs. 1666/- per Sq. Ft. And the amount was to be paid in the construction linked instalmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
N.P. Kaushik, Member (Judicial): 1. Present appeal is directed against the orders dated 08.06.2012 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum VI (in short the District Forum). Vide impugned order, the District Forum directed the appellant to refund the amount of Rs.3 lakhs alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of booking till its realization. Litigation costs to the tune of Rs.50,000/- were also awarded. Facts which are not in dispute are that the complainant Shri Maneesh Sharma got booked a residential flat with M/s Taneja Developers and Infrastructures Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as the appellant). On 28.02.2006, a cheque for an amount of Rs.3 lakhs was given by the complainant to the appellant. It is also not in dispute that the booking was earlier done by M/s In Time Promoters which later on got merged with the appellant. Complaint was filed against the present appellant. Allotment was to be made within a period of six months. No development took place at the site. Complaina...
Tag this Judgment!