Court : Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Ahmedabad
S.A. Makhija, Member. 1. This complaint is filed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity). 2. The short facts of the complainant's case are that the complainant had invested about Rs.75,00,000 in Suphala Plantations of the opponents who have their registered office at XL iv/62, Aroma Cottage, SRM Road, Cochin-7682018. The details of investment in Mangium Land Scheme, are given in the complaint. This scheme was in regard to purchase of a unit in immovable property for plantation situated in village Kuppanapur, Taluk Kovilpatti, Dist. Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu. The notices have been issued on the opponents but most of them have not been served. 3. In this case the Mangium shares units in the immovable property are issued from Cochin where the opponents have their registered office. The opponent company does not have any branch in Gujarat. The units relate to immovable property situated in the State of Tamil Nadu, T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Ahmedabad
S.A. Makhija, Member: 1. This complaint is filed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity.) 2. The short facts of the complainants case are that the complainant is a registered company and had opened a Current Account with the opponent bank. The company had been taking the services of the bank for its commercial purpose. On 9.10.2003 the company detected the fraud committed by one Rajesh Tripathi in collusion with the opponent bank. In para 20 of the complaint the complainant has specifically stated in so many words that the cause of action had arisen on 21.10.2003 when the company came to know about the fraud. 3. First and main question arising in this case is as to whether the complaint is a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act in view of the Amendment Act 62 of 2002 which came into force with effect from 15.3.2003. An answer to this question can be had in the case of Economic Transport O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Ahmedabad
S.A. Makhija, Member: 1. The appellant Shri Giriraj Proteins are original complainant and the respondent National Insurance Co. Ltd., are the original opponent and they are referred to as such in their original nomenclature for the sake of convenience. 2. The short facts of the case are that the complainant was running a flour mill in Shriram Builders Compound at Chakalia Road in village Dahod. District Dahod. It was using plastic and gunny bags for packing its product. All the packed and ready material was kept in storage place in the premises of the complainant. The complainant had insured the machinery, goods, stocks, packing material, etc., and the said policy was issued by the opponent company for insuring the risk of Rs. 62 lacs. On 6.5.2003 in the mid-night fire had taken place at the insured premises. The complainant informed the opponent Insurance Company, completed all formalities and submitted the insurance claim. Surveyor was appointed by the opponent who assessed the loss ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Ahmedabad
Mrs. Jyoti P. Jani, Member: 1. The original opponent being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surat (Addl.) in Complaint No. 512 of 2008 dated 7.3.2009 whereby the complaint came to be allowed has filed the appeal for the sake of convenience, parties to this appeal are hereinafter referred to by their original nomenclature. 2. Short facts of the case are the complainant and his family had mediclaim policy from the opponent Insurance Company. During the subsistence of the policy, the complainants son was admitted on 7.3.2008 in the hospital and was diagnosed as acute viral hepatitis for which Rs. 23,143 were incurred as medical expenses. He was discharged from the hospital on 14.3.2008. The claim was lodged before the opponent Insurance Company which was repudiated on 28.4.2008 on the ground that the concerned hospital is unregistered and does not have operation theatre facility. Hospital must be registered or 15 be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Ahmedabad
S.A. Makhija, Member: 1. This complaint is filed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act or C.P. A. for the sake of brevity). 2. The short facts of the complainants case are that the complainants had their own plot No. 70-A at Bhavnagar, details of which are given in para-2 of the complaint. The complainants decided to float a scheme of flats on their plots and as such they had given contract of those flats for construction and building them to one Kamal Trivedi who had left the work half way. The opponent thereafter was hired to complete the remaining work of the scheme. It is the say of the complainants that there were disputes between the parties in regard to payments to the opponent therefore he had filed a Special Civil Suit No. 70 of 2004 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) which came to be withdrawn unconditionally by the opponent as there was compromise between the parties. As per agreement dated 4.2.2003 the opponent was req...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Ahmedabad
1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhavnagar on 14.5.2008 in Consumer Case No. 101 of 2007 which came to be partly allowed, the appellants have preferred this appeal on the grounds stated in the appeal memo. Main contention of the appellants is that the complaint was clearly time barred and no delay condonation application was given by the respondents with complaint. The order of learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on merits is illegal. The appellants are original opponents and respondents are original complaints and they are referred to their original nomenclature for the sake of convenience. 2. The short facts of the case are that the opponents had floated a scheme of 16 flats in 1997 known as Gautam Krupa. The complainants had joined the scheme and the opponents had executed sale deed also in their favour. The complainants however cleverly have not stated the date of sale document and kept the same as blank as disclosed fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Ahmedabad
S.A. Makhija, Member: 1. We have heard Mr. Jitendra Ved, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. J.S Patel, learned Advocate for respondents at length. 2. The complaint is filed after about twenty-two years. The cheque in question was deposited for clearing in the bank on 6.10.1986. It is alleged that the said cheque was not cleared and deposited in the appellants account and as such the account holder had complained to the respondents about the same on 20.9.2008. i.e. after seventeen years. The complaint is filed on 10.12.2008. There being no continuing cause or action, the complaint is clearly time barred. The appellant had not submitted any application for condonation of delay. 3. It is settled legal position that under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, a Consumer Fora is under duty to dismiss the complaint filed beyond period of limitation, if sufficient cause for delay is not shown. This legal position gets support from the ruling of Honble Supreme Court in the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Ahmedabad
Mrs. Jyoti P. Jani, Member: 1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay caused in filing the appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vadodara in Complaint No. 813 of 2008 dated 22.11.2010. 2. We have heard Mr. N.J. Acharya, learned Advocate for the applicant and respondent, party in person at length. The learned Advocate for the applicant has mainly taken two contentionsviz. (i)The opponents were not served with the notice/summons of District Forum. (ii)There was administrative and procedural delay in filing the appeal. 3. The first contention raised by the learned Advocate for the applicant is that they were not served with the summons to appear before the District Forum, Vadodara and hence they failed to appear before the Forum and the matter was decided ex parte. 4. The District Forum has observed in its judgment in para 3 that Heard complainant in person, on behalf of opponent along with the complaint, necessary documents ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Ahmedabad
S.A. Shah, President: 1. The complainant is a fixed deposit holder issued by the first opponent Reliance Industries Ltd., Opposite Party No. 2 is the financial consultant through whom the complainant had got his amount deposited by way of fix deposit. 2. The complainant has alleged that Reliance Industries Ltd., had issued Right Shares @ Rs. 60/- each. It is further alleged that the opposite party had promised to give such 50 shares at the premium of Rs. 50/- to deposit holders also. 3. The complainant has relied upon a registered letter dated October 14,1989, written to him by the Opposite Party No. 2 in reply to the notice served by the complainant and the complainant relied upon following observations appearing in the said letter : The preferential allotment of shares was issued by the company and the forms for such preferential allotment were also issued by the company through our offices and we were only helping them in collecting applications forms received from the deposit hold...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Ahmedabad
S.A. Shah, President: (1) This appeal arises out of the judgment of the Surat Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Complaint No. 18 of 1989 decided on 6th April, 1990 by a short order holding that the truck purchased by the appellant was of the value of Rs. 2,21,119/ and thereof the Surat Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The respondent has filed cross-objections. (2) There is no dispute that the appellant-complainant had made a claim for Rs. 28,853.05, the damages suffered by him. (3) Mr. Saraf, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has stated that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court does not depend upon the value of the truck but depends upon the claim made by the complainant. The complainant having made a claim for Rs. 28,850/- the District Forum had the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear this complaint and rejection of the complaint on this preliminary ground of pecuniary jurisdiction is obviously erroneou...
Tag this Judgment!