Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) Complainant Sh. Anil Khanna has filed this complaint against the OP for return of Rs.8,01,000/- received from the complainant by the respondent for providing agreed services but committed gross deficiency of service, compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for mental agony, pain and harassment etc. and litigation cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. 2) The marriage ceremony of complainants daughter was scheduled to be solemnized on 06.05.2011 following which the complainant decided to engage the services of respondent company which represented to have immense market reputation in providing works of painting, props, accessories, floral, fabric and linen and other related works including generators and lighting. The respondent promised to make various wedding functions such as Bhajan Sandhya (on 29.04.2011), Sagan (on 04.05.2011) Mehndi/Ladies Sangeet (on 05.05.2011) and finally wedding ceremony on 06.05.2011, a resounding success and memorable. Accordingly Mr. Vikas Gututi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Salma Noor, Member: 1. In a complaint case bearing No.588/13 Dr. Ashok Kumar vs. HDFC Bank Cards Division filed before District Forum(East) Saini Enclave, Delhi. 22.01.2014 was fixed for the appellant/OP1 for filing WS, which he failed to file and the District Forum closed the opportunity of filing the WS of appellant/OP1. 2. That is what brings the Appellant/OP1 in appeal before this Commission for setting aside the said ex-parte order. 3. We have heard Shri Rohit Nagpal, Counsel for the Appellant/OP1 in this appeal at the admission stage as there is no need to hear the respondent. 4. The version of the appellant/OP1 for not filing the WS on 22.1.14 is that father of the appellant counsel was suffering from a chronic disease and he was in a critical condition, so the counsel Shri Sumit Aggarwal went to Siliguri to attend him that was the reason he could not file the WS. 5. There is no plausible reason to disbelieve or not to rely and act upon this version of the appellant. Besides, it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
N.P. Kaushik, Member (Judicial): 1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 23.10.2010 vide which the Ld. District forum-II, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi passed the following directions against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as OPs): i) That OP No.1 and 2 shall refund Rs.11 lakh as the depreciated value of the car to the complainant ii) That the complainant is not liable to pay Rs.5,28,968/- to the OP No.3 iii) OPs shall pay Rs.1 lakh to the complainant as compensation for mental agony, harassment and sheer suffering together with ligitation charges. 2. Facts in brief are that the complainant Smt. Lata Jain r/o 1C/5, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi purchased a Skoda Laura vehicle from Silvertone Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP No.2), who happened to be the authorized dealer of Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad, Maharashtra (OP No.1). Price of the car was Rs.18,18,638/-. The car was under warranty for a period of two years. On 24.7.2008, the complainan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) Complainant/ Appellant has filed this appeal under section 15 of the C.P. Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) against judgment and order dt. 07.03.2012 passed by DCDRF (Central) Maharana Pratab Bus Terminal, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. In complaint case no. 307/10 Sh. Satya Prakash Vs ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. 2) Complainant/ Appellant secured a Health Insurance policy no. 40341/fpp/02853238/01/000, Vide Card No. IHPN-05229030/01 for Rs.2,00,000/- The period of Insurance was 21.11.2009 to 20.11.2011. On 23.02.2010 with complainant felt heart problem, he therefore approached Sir Ganga Ram Hospital for treatment. He made efforts to get cash less Medical facility from the Insurance Company but could not get proper response. Ultimately he was admitted in the hospital on 01.03.2010. He underwent Heart-Surgery in the Hospital and was discharged on 09.03.2010. Before discharge he made payment of Rs.1,86,488/- on 17.03.2010. He again felt so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Mr. S.A. Siddiqui, Judicial Member” 1. Alleging deficiency of service, this complaint has been filed against OP, United India Insurance Company Ltd. for payment of compensation and damages to the tune of Rs. 22 Lac. 2. Relevant facts relating to this complaint are that the OP is a Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act with its registered office at K-31, First Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Complainant is also private company located at Sector-1, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201009. The OP entered into a contract with complainant for provision of health insurance services to complainant Directors/Employees, their dependents on 24.12.2008 (for the period of 19.12.2008 to 18.12.2009) for net premium of Rs. 5,18,012/-. The OP covered assured persons up to a limit of Rs. 1,65,00,000/- (Copy of Group Mediclaim Tailor made policy is annexure and marked as annexure 2 and receipt as annexure 3). The Tailor Made Policy issued by the OP was numbered as 040703...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Mr. S.A. Siddiqui, Judicial Member: 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 4.5.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (V) CSC Block, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088 in Complaint Case No. 480/2010, Sh. R.K. Rohilla v. North Delhi Power Ltd., Delhi. 2. The appellant/complainant Sh. R.K. Rohilla, owner, of the office area 36 sq. mts. and number 208, IInd Floor, Bhanot Bhawan, Flat B-1/2, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi, is the consumer having NDPLs permanent electricity meter connection (non-domestic light) K.No. 36204270979T in electricity district of Model Town, Delhi. The OP/respondent, NDPL is service provider. Sh. R.K. Rohilla filed consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. During the course of the proceedings an application was moved by the respondent/OP raising a preliminary objection to the effect that complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.A. Siddiqui, (Judicial) Member: 1) Alleging deficiency of service on the part of the OP, complainant/respondent-1 filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (South) New Delhi, for a refund of the price of the T.V., compensation and the cost. During the course of the proceedings on 01.08.2011 ex-parte proceedings were drawn against OP-2/appellant as neither OP-2 nor counsel was present before the Forum. Counsel for the OP-2 reached a bit late and moved an application for setting aside ex-parte order, but this application was dismissed on the ground that the District Forum had no power to set aside the ex-parte or to recall its own order. Therefore, the OP-2 preferred this appeal which is under consideration. 2) On to filing the appeal, notices were issued to the respondents. Respondent-1/complainant appeared and filed reply. 3) It has been argued on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that on 01.08.2011, counsel for the appellant could not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.C. Jain, Member: 1) This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the order dt. 22.03.2012 passed by the District Forum-VI, M-Block, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 183/05. 2) The case pertains to desertion of Indian passengers by foreign airlines at alien land, the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant is a senior consultant physician in Delhi, he is qualified MBBS, M.D. (M.ED), Gold Medallist, FIACM, MICC, MCSI, MCCP, MAP and is specialist in Hypertension Heart Deceases and Diabetes, he is also attached with many hospitals of repute in Delhi as consultant and is also having his own clinic in Krishna Nagar, Delhi. The respondent/complainant to update his knowledge and to know latest happening and researches all over the world the used to attend conferences and lectures etc. in different parts of the world from time to time and to attend one such conference and lecture at Zurich (Switzerland), the respondent/complainant alongwith many other senior Doctors from all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.C. Jain, Member: 1) This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the order dt. 22.03.2012 passed by the District Forum-VI, M-Block, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 276/04. 2) The case pertains to desertion of Indian passengers by foreign airlines at alien land, the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant is a senior consultant physician in Delhi, he is qualified MBBS, M.D. (M.ED), Gold Medallist, FIACM, MICC, MCSI, MCCP, MAP and is specialist in Hypertension Heart Deceases and Diabetes, he is also attached with many hospitals of repute in Delhi as consultant and is also having his own clinic in Krishna Nagar, Delhi. The respondent/complainant to update his knowledge and to know latest happening and researches all over the world the used to attend conferences and lectures etc. in different parts of the world from time to time and to attend one such conference and lecture at Zurich (Switzerland), the respondent/complainant alongwith many other senior Doctors from all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.A. Siddiqui(Oral) 1. This appeal has been filed by the complainant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) against the order dated 26.8.11 passed in complaint case No. 156/08 by DCDRF-X, Govt. Of NCT of Delhi. 2. Facts leading to the filing of this appeal are noted below: Complainant/appellant deposited a cheque No. 001186 dated 13.10.06 for an amount of Rs. 11,000/- with respondent (ICICI Bank) on 20.10.06 towards balance transfer. This cheque was drawn on SBI Credit Card with whom complainant/appellant had credit card amount by way of fund transfer for clearing the outstanding payment due towards credit card of the respondent Bank. The said cheque was got encashed by the respondent Bank on 28.10.06 but they kept on denying this fact and failed to reflect the said amount in the monthly statement. The complainant/appellant brought this fact to the notice of the different authorities but with no result. Finally he made a complaint to the Bank...
Tag this Judgment!