Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Surjit Singh, President: Oral: 1. This appeal by State Bank of India and its three functionaries, is directed against the order dated 26.06.2009 of Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur, whereby in a complaint, under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, filed by respondent Krishan Lal, they have been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 18,611/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint and also to pay Rs. 2000/- by way of costs. 2. Respondent Krishan Lal, filed a complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur, alleging that he had a saving bank account with State Bank of India, Bilaspur, but in the passbook pertaining to that account, which had been issued to him, entries had not been correctly reflected. Complainant did not point out in the complaint, as to which entries had been incorrectly reflected and what according to him, should have been the cor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Surjit Singh, President: Oral: 1. By this order we are disposing of two appeals the titles and particulars thereof are given in the title of this order. Both the appeals arise out of the same order, i.e. order dated 18.06.2010 of Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solan and, therefore, they are being disposed of by common order. 2. Shri Tula Ram, appellant in F.A. No.271/2010 (hereinafter referred to as complainant) owned a Mahindra Pickup Van No.HP-16-0732. He got it insured with M/s Bajaj General Insurance Company Limited, appellant in Appeal No.311/2010 (hereinafter referred to as opposite party), against own damage in the sum of Rs. 1,90,000/-. The aforesaid amount was the value of the vehicle declared by the complainant himself. Vehicle met with an accident on 16.02.2008 and was extensively damaged. Accident was reported to opposite party by the complainant. A Surveyor was deputed by the opposite party, who assessed the loss at Rs. 78,010/-. Appellant was not sati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.03.2010 passed in Consumer Complaint No.13/2006 by Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby the complaint is dismissed by holding that there is no merit in the complaint. Parties hereinafter are to be referred as per their status. 2. The facts of the case within narrow compass are that the complainant had got financed a truck No.HP-13-0274 from opposite party No.1 for an amount Rs. 2,50,000/- and was required to pay the said loan in 35 equal installments of Rs. 10,100/-. Further averments in the complaint were to the effect that he was regularly defraying the loan installments to the opposite parties, and could not defray the loan installment for the month of August, 2004, which was defrayed by him in the month of November, 2004 and thereafter did not commit any default. It was also alleged that despite continuously defraying the installments, the opposite parties,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Surjit Singh, President J. (Oral). 1. This is a complainants appeal against the order dated 4th August, 2009, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby his complaint, under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he field against the respondent, HP State Urban Development Authority, has been dismissed.2. Facts, which led to the filing of the complaint by the appellant, against the respondent may be stated. On an application moved by the appellant in response to some advertisement got published by the respondent, one flat in Housing Colony, Shoghi, was allotted to the appellant, vide letter dated 06.02.1998, Annexure A-1. As per this letter, tentative cost of the flat was `5,37,500/-. Fifteen percent of the tentative cost was to be paid at the time of the issuance of allotment letter and the balance amount in six half yearly instalments of Rs.53,750/- each, so as to make up 75% of the total cost by the time the flat was supposed to be ready fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Surjit Singh (Retd.), President: Oral: In the present appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, appellant has assailed the order dated 17.12.2008 of ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur, whereby a complaint instituted under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the respondents has been allowed and the appellant has been ordered to refund a sum of Rs.2,28,660/- together with interest @! 12% per annum from the date of deposit of the aforesaid amount of money and also to pay Rs.3,000/- on account of cost of the litigation. Facts relevant for the disposal of appeal may be noticed. Sometime in the year 1992, appellant advertised a scheme for construction of certain flats in Strawberry Hills area of Shimla. That was a self-financing scheme. Flats were constructed and sought to be sold in accordance with the said scheme. However, several flats remained unsold. The Board of Directors of the appellant in its 129th meeting held on 13.09.2001, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Surjit Singh, President. Oral: This appeal by the Superintendent of Post Offices Solan and Postmaster, Post Office Sarahan is directed against the order dated 05.05.2010 of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirmour at Nahan, whereby the complaint, filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the respondent-Ram Nath seeking award of compensation for mis-disbursement of money sent through money order has been allowed. Admitted facts are that respondent-Ram Nath booked a money order for Rs.2400/- on 07.09.2007, at Post Office Sarahan. Money was not disbursed to the payee named in the money order form. Instead it was disbursed to some other person. On coming to know that money had not been disbursed to the named payee, respondent-Ram Nath, took up the matter with the appellants. Appellants then prepared a duplicate money order and remitted the money to the person named as payee by the respondent. This took 9 months time. Learned Forum awarded compensati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
1. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding MemberThis appeal is directed against the order dated, 31.8.2009, passed by District Forum, Una, in Consumer Complaint No. 80/2007, whereby the complaint was dismissed by the Fora below by holding that there is no merit in the present complaint. The parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the complaint. 2. The factual matrix of the case are that the complainant had raised a loan for purchase of vehicle Swaraj Mazda amounting to Rs.6,53,000 in the month of December, 2006, the complainant issued about 70 to 78 cheques for the satisfaction and security of their loan amount and as per terms and conditions, the OPs fixed monthly instalment of whole financed money payable through cheques. 3. Further allegation in the complaint are that a lease agreement was also prepared with opposite party No. 2 by the complainant, who got registered the said vehicle vide registration No. HP-20B-6241 and the complainants were using the vehicle by suppl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
1. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member This order will dispose of the present application for condonation of delay. 2. Brief background under which this application had been filed is narrated in detail hereinafter. Complaint No.157/2009 was decided by the District Forum, Shimla on 26.2.2011 and the copy of the order was received by post on 7.3.2011 by the Counsel for the applicant. The averments in the application are to the effect that the applicant is residing in interior village of upper valley, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi and the Counsel for the applicant was not having telephone number of the applicant and it was only on 1.7.2011 that they had received the message of their Advocate about the case and the applicant is a widow and due to the death of her husband she remains under shock, as such prayer had been made for condoning the delay in the present case which as per averments made in the application is neither intentional nor deliberate but bona fide one. As such, p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order of District Forum, Shimla in Consumer Complaint No. 105/2008, decided on 26.6.2009, whereby the complaint was dismissed solely on the ground that this complaint involves complicated question of facts and law, the same cannot be decided in the summary manner and the dispute between the same parties is pending in the Civil Court (Junior Division) at Amb. The parties hereinafter referred to as per their status in the complaint. 2. The facts of the case as they emerge from the record are that the complainant kumari Gunjan, being proprietor of firm M/s Surya Filling Station, had purchased 15000 inter locking pavers, (hereinafter referred to as pavers) vide bill No. 65 dated 7.6.2006 and vide bill No. 68 dated 12.6.2006 for a sum of Rs, 45,000/- each from the opposite party. The complainant had made advance payment of Rs. 10000/- on 12.2.2006 to the opposite party. The complainant had issued two cheque of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Mandi, dated 18.11.2008 passed in Consumer Complaint No.116/2008, whereby the complaint was allowed and opposite parties No.1 and 2 were directed to pay to the complainant Rs.2,00,000/- arising out of the insurance policy of his deceased wife with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till realization of the amount and directions were also given for payment of Rs.2,000/- as compensation for harassment and litigation cost was quantified at Rs.1,000/-. Parties are hereinafter being referred to as per their status in the complaint. 2. Facts of the case within narrow compass are that Parma Nand, husband of the complainant had got himself insured with the opposite parties vide Policy No.151950866 in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- under plan and term 106-15 (with AB) in the year2006 and the complainant was nominee in the policy. It had been alleged that Sh. ...
Tag this Judgment!