Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral): 1. By this common order, we proceed to dispose of two appeals, i.e. F.A. No. 89/2014 and F.A. No.90/2014, as both of these are directed against the same order, i.e. order dated 23.01.2014, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala. 2. Respondent No.1-Gian Chand, in both the appeals, (hereinafter called complainant) being a Member of Hamirpur Cooperative House Building Society, appellant in F.A. No.89/2014, (hereinafter referred to as opposite party No.1) was issued a letter of allotment of a flat that was to be constructed by opposite party No.1. Despite complainant having paid the substantial amount of money towards the cost of construction of flat, possession of the flat was not delivered to him. He, therefore, filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction to opposite party No.1 to allot the flat. Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Hous...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. This is an opposite parties appeal against the order dated 21.10.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solan, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against them by respondent-Baldev Singh, has been allowed and they have been directed to pay a sum of Rs.8.93 lacs, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on account of insurance claim, and also to pay Rs.5,000/-, as compensation. 2. Respondent-Baldev Singh owned a truck, which was insured with the appellants, in the sum of Rs.8.93 lacs, for the period from 17.07.2007 to 16.07.2008. On the night intervening 5th and 6th March, 2008, the truck was parked outside the residence of the respondent-Baldev Singh, by the driver engaged by him (the respondent-complainant). Ignition key of the vehicle was not removed. However, the cabin was locked. On the next morning, i.e. on 06.03.2008, truck was found missing. Report of theft was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral): 1. This is an appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 21.12.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by the respondent, against the appellant, has been allowed and a direction given to it (the appellant), to pay a sum of Rs.61,329/-, on account of insurance claim, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and also to pay Rs.5,000/-, as compensation and Rs.3,000/-, as costs. 2. Respondent owned a vehicle, which was insured with the appellant from 05.10.2011 to 04.10.2012. On 01.05.2012, the vehicle met with an accident and was damaged. According to the respondent, she spent Rs.78,988/- on repair of the vehicle and another sum of Rs.10,000/-, on towing the vehicle from the site of the accident to the workshop. 3. Claim was lodged by the respondent with the appellant, but the same was rep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral): 1. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 26.10.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, whereby appellants complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, has been dismissed, with the findings that the vehicle, in question, was being used as a goods carrier vehicle, without there being a route permit and also on the ground that there was one unauthorized person on board the vehicle (tractor), when the accident took place. 2. Appellant owned a tractor, which was registered as a light goods vehicle, per registration certificate, copy Annexure-A. The tractor was insured with the respondents, for the period from 24.03.2009 to 23.03.2010, in the sum of Rs.3,49,600/-. On 07.06.2009, tractor met with an accident. Report, copy Annexure-C, was lodged with the Police. At the time of the accident, the tractor was carrying earth, as per ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral): 1. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 18.01.2014, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby, a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by respondent-Rita Devi, through her Special Power of Attorney- Rahul Kumar against the appellant, has been allowed and a direction given to the appellant to refund the amount of Rs.54,388/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, which was charged, on account of price of fuel injector and also to pay Rs.10,000/-, as compensation and another sum of Rs.3,000/-, as costs. 2. Respondent-complainant purchased a new Swift Diesel Car, in October, 2011, with extended warranty upto October, 2014. According to the respondent-complainant, in the month of July, 2012, vehicle was taken to the workshop of the appellant, who is the Authorised Service provider appointed by the manufacturer of the vehicle and the same was returned after servic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral): 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 15.03.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hamirpur, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by respondent Karam Chand, a brother of the deceased-Milkhi Ram, has been allowed and a direction given to the appellant to pay the sum assured, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of the complaint, i.e. 04.09.2008, to the date of its payment and also to pay Rs.5,000/-, on account of litigation expenses. 2. Deceased-Milkhi Ram, was employed as a Beldar with Public Works Department, represented by respondents No.2 and 3. The Public Works Department had purchased a policy from the appellant, covering the risk of accidental death of its employees. The policy covered deceased-Milkhi Ram also. On 10.01.2006, when Milkhi Ram was engaged in the work of road constr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral): 1. Cheque for a sum of Rs.2,35,176/- has been submitted. Money be invested in a fixed deposit with the same bank, with which initial deposit of Rs.25,000/- has been made. Disposed of. 2. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 16.11.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirmour at Nahan, whereby, a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against the appellant by respondent-M/s. Indo Phytochem Pharmaceuticals, has been partly allowed and a direction given to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1,75,797/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and also to pay Rs.10,000/-, on account of compensation and Rs.2,000/-, on account of litigation expenses. 3. Respondent-complainant had a factory at Moginand (Kala Amb) in Sirmour District. It (the respondent) insured the building, stock, plant and machinery, with the appellant in the sum of Rs.1.22 crores, from 24.01.2007 to 23.01.20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral): 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 06.12.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it and respondents No.2 and 3 by respondent No.1- Tara Chand Sharma, has been allowed only against the present appellant and direction given to it to refund a sum of Rs.55,642/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint, to the date of refund of the said amount of money and also to pay Rs.1.00 lac on account of compensation for harassment and mental tension and Rs.3,000/-, as litigation expenses. 2. Respondent-Tara Chand Sharma, filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that on 05.04.2012, under a scheme for exchange of old car, he purchased a Tata Indigo GLX car from the present appellant and paid a sum of Rs.5,16,500/-. It was stated that his old ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral): 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 30th October, 2013, of learned District Consumer Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it by respondent-Narvada Thakur, has been allowed and a direction given to it, to refund the price of suit length, to pay money equivalent to the stitching charges and also to pay compensation of Rs.2,500/- and litigation expenses quantified at Rs.1,000/-. 2. Respondent filed a complaint against the appellant alleging that she had purchased a designer suit for Rs.950/- from the appellant, on 24.09.2010, and spent a sum of Rs.250/- on stitching charges and another sum of Rs.200/- for lining. She wore the suit only for a few hours on 30th September, 2010, in connection with a school function of her child and within that period of wearing, pilling appeared and some loose threads were also spotted. On the very next day, i.e. on 01.10.201...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 22.06.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby appellants complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondent, has been dismissed in default. Earlier a revision petition was filed on 23.07.2013, challenging the aforesaid order dated 22.06.2013. Since the impugned order pertains to the dismissal of complaint and is, therefore, appealable, that revision petition was withdrawn on 18.09.2013, with liberty reserved to the revision petitioner to file an appeal. So, the present appeal was filed on 24.09.2013. Nobody has appeared for the respondent despite service. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record. 3. It is stated in the grounds of appeal that instead of noting down the date to be 22.06.2013 in his diary, counsel engaged by the appellant noted down the date to be...
Tag this Judgment!