Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.A. Siddiqui, J. Oral: 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment/order dated 6.10.10 passed by the District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 954/09. Ld. District Forum through its impugned order dated 6.10.10 partly decreed the complaint. The complainant was not fully satisfied with the impugned order of District Forum and preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts relating to this appeal are that the Complainant, Dr. Smriti Goel, is a holder of ICICI Bank credit card No. 4477463823908005. Reward points accrue to the card holder depending upon the amount spent through credit card. In December 2007, on the request of card holder and as per scheme of the OP, one Philips DVD player was dispatched to the holder by the OP charging Rs. 1200/- and adjusting 2983 reward points accumulated on the credit card. According to the complainant, each reward point was equivalent to Re 1/-. Thus OP charged Rs. 2983+Rs.1200/- = Rs. 4183 towards the cost of DVD player. The com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Salma Noor, J. Oral: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.7.09 passed by the District Consumer Forum-III, Janakpuri, New Delhi-58, in Complaint Case No. 640/07 wherein the District Forum directed the Appellant/OP-1 to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs. 3,250/- after collecting their Dish and STB from the premises of the complainant. OP-1 and to further pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2000/- towards compensation and cost for the harassment caused to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on their part. The appellant has prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the complainant has taken a DTH connection of Tata Sky Ltd., on 11.3.07 for the purpose of better quality picture and sound on his TV against payment of Rs. 3,250/- vide invoice No.062 dated 11.3.2007. After some days, the service provider, TATA Sky Ltd., block the ETC Punjabi and some other channels due to which complainant and his family were dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
V.K. Gupta, Member (Judicial): 1. This is a complainant under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.2. Brief facts are that in pursuance of alluring advertisement made by the OP in The Hindustan Times on 26.2.2006, the complainant booked a flat measuring 1330 Sq.ft. comprising 3 bedrooms, drawing and dining rooms in Easterned Hights at Indirapuram, Ghaziabad at the 4th Floor, but the OP, without any reason, allotted the complainant on the 7th Floor without his consent, thereby allotting flat No.704 in Block B on 7th Floor. The complainant has made the following payments:S.No.Cheque No.Amount17909632,20,000/-23860052,18,900/-33738192,19,450/-43207381,09,725/-51129891,09,275/-60158781,09,275/-Total9,86,625/-3. In this way, an amount of Rs.9,86,625/- has been paid to the OP, to the utter surprise, on 25.3.2008, the OP has cancelled the allotment on the pretext of the non payment of the installment due and payable along with PLC charges. Cancellation has been made solely on the g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
V.K. Gupta, Member: 1. This appeal by the OP is directed against the order dated 5.3.2010 of the CDRF Central, Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, Kashmere Gate, Delhi whereby the complaint of the respondent was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 6,33,221 with interest @ 9% p.a. and also Rs. 20,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,000 as litigation charges. 2. Brief facts are that the complainant/respondent is the owner of the vehicle No. DL-1P-C-7676 a TATA bus which was used by the complainant for playing the tourist roots for the purpose of his living. The said vehicle was insured with the OP/Appellant for a sum of Rs. 10,94,721 for the period from 20.11.2006 to 19.1.2007 and it was covered against the comprehensive risk including the risk of the accident. Unfortunately, on 20.6.2007 the vehicle was carrying tourists around Dharamshala in Himachal Pradesh and it fell into a khud file endorsing of difficult turn near Dharamshala. In consequence thereof, several persons died/sustain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President: 1. This appeal has been filed by appellant/OP in complaint case No.243/2011 pending before District Forum-II to set aside orders dated 03.01.2012 and 15.05.2012, by which the Forum ordered to proceed ex-parte against the OP, and rejected his application for setting aside ex-parte order, on the ground that they have no jurisdiction to pass any such order. 2. That is what brings the appellant in appeal before this Commission. 3. We have heard Mr. A.K. Soni, counsel for the appellant at the admission stage in this appeal. 4. It has been the consistent judicial policy, to adopt an attitude for lenience, in dealing with the such applications, because the purpose of law is fulfilled, only when both the parties are heard and the case is decided on merits. The appellant has said that his counsel Sh. A.K. Soni was lying ill and could not therefore appear before the District Forum on 03.01.2012 fixed before the Forum, and the proceedings were declared ex-parte agains...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
N.A. Zaidi, President. 1. This Complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant booked a flat in "Garden City" with OP-1 in the month of October 2007 and deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- vide cheque No.0005477 dt. 15.10.07. Flat bearing no.201, type C in Block C1 on the second floor was allotted and a buyers agreement dt. 26.12.07 was executed with OP. A cheque of Rs.1,55,000/- was deposited on 19.12,07. In total Rs.1,75,000/- were deposited. A Tripartite agreement with the Dewan Housing Finance Company was also executed on 08.01.08. As per the terms and conditions of the buyer agreement the entire pre-interest EMI amount until possession was to be delivered, is to be compensated by PDC cheques in favour of the complainant. The date of possession of the flat was to be 22 months from the date of the booking and at the time of the offer of possession, the complainant have a choice of either retaining the flat or returning back to the OP wherein the complainant was to be re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral): 1. A complaint filed by the complainant against the appellant/OP before District Forum (South) was dismissed in complainants defaultvide order dated 3.3.2011. The complainant thereafter filed a restoration application, which was also dismissedvide order dated 29.11.2011, on the ground that they have no jurisdiction to pass in restoration order. 2. That is what brings the complainant in appeal before this Commission. 3. We have heard Ms. Pratibha Singh, Counsel for the appellant at the admission stage in this appeal. 4. It has been consistent judicial policy to adopt an attitude for lenience in dealing with the restoration application, because the purpose of law is fulfilled, only when both the parties are heard and the case is decided on merits. The appellant/complainant has sad that his Counsel was busy in an urgent matter before Honble High Court and therefore could not appear before the District Forum when the case was called out, and during this ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President: 1. Complaint case bearing No.14/2011 filed before the District Forum, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi by the Complainant was dismissed in complainants default vide order dated 27.7.2011. Thereafter the complainant filed an application for restoration, as stated by the Counsel for the appellant complainant, which be withdrew on 25.11.2011. 2. That is what brings the Appellant Complainant in appeal before this Commission. 3. We have heard Shri Sanjiv Sharma, Counsel for the Appellant in this appeal at the admission stage. 4. It has been the consistent policy of the courts to allow a little latitude, so that parties may contest the case on merits and an effective order may be passed. Adopting the same policy, we are inclined to allow the appeal for contesting the case on merits. We, therefore, order that the appeal be restored to its original number, and be decided on merits. 5. The case is remanded back to the District Forum Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi and Appellant Comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Salma Noor,Member: (Oral): 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.4.10 passed by the District Consumer Forum-III, 150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, (Behind Janak Cinema), Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058, in Complaint Case No. 489/09/19858 wherein the District Forum directed the Appellant Respondent-1 to refund the insurance amount of the vehicle i.e. Rs. 3,15,600/- to the Complainant, Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation and cost for the harassment caused to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on their part. 2. Along with the appeal, an application under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act for condonation of delay has also been filed. 3. We have heard Sh. Sanjeev Nirwani, Counsel for the Appellant and Sh. Vijay Sujla, Counsel for the Respondent at the admission stage. 4. According to the appellant himself, there is a delay of 98 days in filing the appeal. The only explanation for such a long delay is given by the Appellant Counsel is that the District Fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Barkat Ali Zaidi, President, J. 1.The facts of the are that the complainant owned a car for which he obtained Private Car Package Policy on 25.1.2008 from the OP Insurance Company. Copy of the policy is available at page 44-45 of the record. The car was stolen on the intervening night of 31.1.2008 and 1.2.2008 and the Complainant lodged an FIR(copy Annexure D)of theft on 2.2.2008 at Police Station Dilshad Garden, New Delhi. The police failed to trace it. The untraced report is available on record(Copy Annexure D-1). The complainant thereafter lodged a claim before the OP Insurance Co. for Rs.5,50,000/- but the OP Insurance Co. did not settle the claim within the stipulated period. 2.Feeling weary with the attitude of the OP, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, subsequent to which, the OP paid an amount of Rs.5,49,000/- towards the claim of the complainant. The OP opposed the claim and filed a written version. 3. The Trial Forum found the OP deficient in service...
Tag this Judgment!