Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.C. Jain, Member: 1) The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The facts of the case are that the Complainants father Late Sh. Jindu Ram Arora was running a small scale unit in the name and style of M/s Arora Traders for his and his family livelihood Government of NCR Delhi brought a policy according to which industries based in Delhi were ordered to the relocated from residential areas to newly developed industrial areas and the opposite party proposed to allot plots to industrial units under relocation scheme. 2) The complainants late father vide application No. 29626 applied for plot under relocation scheme with the opposite party and the opposite party allotted a plot bearing No. 52, Pocket D, Sector 4, Bawana Industrial Complex admeasuring 250 Sq.mt@ Rs.4200/- per Sq. Mt. costing Rs.10,50,000/- vide allotment letter dt. 23.10.2000. 3) The complainants late father deposited Rs.2,14,500/- with opposite party agains...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.C. Jain, Member: 1) This complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Facts of the case are that an œAccident Guard Policy? No. 0200005250 was obtained by Sh. Mahesh Chand Gupta Son of the complainant from the OP Insurance Company and a premium of Rs. 14,555/- was paid. The policy was effective from 17.09.2002 to 16.09.2003. OP insurance company issued the receipt No. 01-00-00011108 dt. 17.09.2002 for premium paid. The insurance company issued the policy and the schedule of insurance in favour of Sh. Mahesh Chand Gupta and under the policy documents the beneficiary of the policy was Mrs. Maya Devi Gupta i.e. Mother of the insured. 2) On 19.05.2003 at about 11:30 pm unfortunately the complainants son Sh. Mahesh Chand Gupta who had obtained the policy from the OP insurance company was attacked by firearm by some unknown persons and subsequently the son of the complainant died at AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi. An FIR No. 148/2003 wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.C. Jain, Member: 1) The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The facts of the case are that the complainant filed the complaint on the averments that they had been taking Bankers Indemnity Policy from the opposite party since the year 1986 and the same renewed from time to time. During the period 11.07.2006 to 10.07.2007, the complainant bank took bankers indemnity insurance policy bearing No. 271600/48/2007/238 for a sum of Rs. 45 Lacs. The said policy was renewed thereafter also. It is further claimed that said bankers indemnity policy is governed by the terms and conditions as per the Standard Policy and Clause (d) of the Standard Policy is as under : œThe dishonest or criminal act of the employee (s) of the insured with respect to the loss of money and/or Securities wherever committed and whether committed singly or in connivance with other.? 2) During the period 1986 to 2006 the complainant never lodged a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.C. Jain, Member: 1) This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dt. 15.03.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, (District New Delhi) in Complaint Case No. 357/2007. 2) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent had applied for the U.T.I. EQUTIY FUND i.e. MASTER GAIN-1992 for 1800 units through application No. 7239066 alongwith cheque No. 039207 dt. 30.04.1992 for Rs. 18,000/-, which was from the account of Mrs. Hansa Arora the Mother of the complainant/respondent. The cheque was drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Paschim Enclave, New Delhi-110041 and was in favour of the appellant/OP-1. The cheque was cleared from the account on 18.05.1992, which was clearly reflected in the statement of account filed, the complainant/respondent also filed a certificate issued by State Bank of Mysore dt. 16.12.1993 mentioning therein the clearance of aforesaid cheque from the account of Mrs. Hansa Arora. 3) The complainant/respondent stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
N.P. Kaushik, Member(Judicial): Present appeal is directed against the order dated 4.4.2013 vide which the District Consumer Redressal Forum (V), North West District, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi passed the following directions: œPay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 6,58,500/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit by the complainant till payment. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs of litigation. The above order shall be complied with by the OP within 30 days from the date of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment. If OP fails to comply with the order within 30 days, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.? Facts of the case are not in dispute. The Respondent, Shri Rakesh Bahri got booked a residential flat with the appellant on 23.8.2005. He paid Rs. 3 lacs as earnest money by way of a cheque on 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) Appellant/ OP Bank of Baroda has filed this appeal under section 15 r.w section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (Hereinafter called the Act). Brief facts of the matter are that Respondent/ Complainant Laxmi Prasad Gupta was having a SB Account No. 6232 with OP/ Appellant Bank having sufficient balance on 20.11.2006, Complainant/ Respondent visited the OP Bank and obtained statement of account. Complainant was shocked to learn that a sum of Rs 55,000/- and amount of Rs. 30,000/- were illegally withdrawn, from the account of the complainant either with the help of the Bank employees or withdrawn by someone from the account of the Complainant, due to negligence or deficiency on the part of the OP Bank. Complainant/ Respondent brought this fact to the knowledge of the Bank officials and told them in clear terms that the aforesaid amount has never been withdrawn by the Complainant/ Respondent. The Complainant lodged his complaint; kept on pursuing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
N.P. Kaushik, Member (Judicial). 1. The appellant has impugnedthe orders dated 8.8.2011 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, M Block, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi (in short `District Forum) vide which the LRs of the deceased Shri Subhash Chander were held entitled to the insurance claim in respect of the deceased Shri Subhash Chander with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of claim to the date of payment along with compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. 2. Deceased Shri Subhash Chander was insured jointly with his wife Mrs. Murti Devi vide policy No.121057317 commencing from 28.2.2000 to 28.2.2020. The policy was known as Jeevan Sathi ( double cover joint life plan) with profits (with accident benefit.). Shri Subhash Chander died on 21.1.2003 i.e. within three years from the date of commencement of the policy. Claim filed by his wife was repudiated by the appellant vide letter dated 24.8.2004 on the grounds of concealment of true and material facts. Contention of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
N.P. Kaushik, Member (Judicial): 1. Appellant Shri Vinod Kumar has impugned the order dated 3.3.2010 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi (in short the `District Forum. Vide said orders the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant in the District Forum was dismissed. 2. Facts in brief are that the complainant got himself registered with respondent/DDA for the allotment of a plot in the year 1981 under a scheme called Rohini LIG Scheme. He was allotted LIG plot bearing No.62, in Pocket-8, Sector-24, Rohini measuring 32 Sq.mtr. vide letter dated 29.10,1991. He was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.21,229/-. Admittedly, the complainant deposited the aforesaid amount in three instalments and as and when called upon to do so. He remained in touch with the DDA for handing him over the physical possession of the plot. He did not receive any letter from DDA informing him of the status of allotment. Last such letter in the series written to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.C. Jain, Member 1). This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dt. 10.03.2011 passed in Complaint Case No. 1755/2009 by the District Forum VI, New Delhi. 2). The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchase a pair of black leather shoes (size-7) on 16.10.2009 from the respondent/OP vide their bill No. 9681 for an amount of Rs. 749/-, this amount of Rs. 749 was paid by the appellant/complainant in cash to the respondent/OP. The respondent/OP gave a warranty of six months, in case the said pair of shoes developed any defect. On 20.10.2009 when the appellant/complainant wore the said pair of shoes for the first time, he found the stitching of both the shoes opened and shoes were not in a position for use. The appellant/complainant submitted that he had thoroughly seen the shoes before the purchase at the showroom of respondent which were perfectly alright, but it appeared that while packing the shoes after trial, the respondent/OP changed the pair of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.C. Jain, Member: 1) This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dt. 10.03.2011 passed in Complaint Case No. 1755/2009 by the District Forum VI, New Delhi. 2) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchase a pair of black leather shoes (size-7) on 16.10.2009 from the respondent/OP vide their bill No. 9681 for an amount of Rs. 749/-, this amount of Rs. 749 was paid by the appellant/complainant in cash to the respondent/OP. The respondent/OP gave a warranty of six months, in case the said pair of shoes developed any defect. On 20.10.2009 when the appellant/complainant wore the said pair of shoes for the first time, he found the stitching of both the shoes opened and shoes were not in a position for use. The appellant/complainant submitted that he had thoroughly seen the shoes before the purchase at the showroom of respondent which were perfectly alright, but it appeared that while packing the shoes after trial, the respondent/OP changed the pair of the s...
Tag this Judgment!