Court : Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Ranchi
Mr. Justice Ramesh Kr. Merathia, President- 1. The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheet. According to the complainant/Respondent/(S.P. Singh for short) on 31.3.2010 he withdrew Rs. 1200/- at 9.09 A.M and Rs. 1500/- at 10.14 A.M. through the A.T.M. machine, but he did not withdraw Rs. 10,000/- and 20,000/- as shown in the withdrawal statement, and Rs. 10/- was not chargeable. Therefore he filed the claim in question for Rs. 30,010/- with Rs. 50000/- for the injuries suffered and also the interest. 2. By the impugned judgment the Dist Consumer Forum has allowed the claim for Rs. 32,010/- with interest @ 10% P.A. from 31.3.2010 till the date of payment, and also litigation cost of Rs. 2000/-. 3. The opposite parties/appellants/State Bank of India (the Bank for short) has filed this appeal against the said judgment. 4. The Dist Forum has passed the judgment mainly on the ground that inspite of direction, the Bank did not make available the C.C.T.V f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Ranchi
Mr. Justice R.K. Merathia, President- 1. Heard Mr. M. Kumar learned counsel appearing for the Opposite party/appellant (Bank for short) on limitation as well as admission matter. The delay of four days in filing this appeal is condoned. 2. After hearing Mr. Kumar for the Bank and carefully going through the impugned order and the other documents, we find no merit in this appeal. 3. According to the complainant/Respondent/Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, after crediting Rs. 50,000/-, the Bank issued a Fixed Deposit receipt no. TDR 696493 in his favour but the Bank is not paying the maturity value of the Fixed Deposit. 4. According to the Bank due to heavy rush and by mistake/inadvertence, TDR was issued and at the time of maturity, the proof of credit of such amount could not be found. Therefore, the Bank was not obliged to pay the maturity amount. Mr. Kumar submitted that the complainant did not produce any documents to show that he got the said amount credited. 5. It is not the case of the Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Ranchi
Dhananjay Prasad Singh, President: 1. This appeal by M/s. Ashish Financiers is filed against the order dated 26.8.2009 directing it to issue NOC within a week and further to pay jointly with Shree Bikes Rs. 50,000 by way of compensation to the complainant. 2. The complainant Shri Anuj Kr. Sinha has purchased JH01-2827, Hero Honda Motorcycle from Shree Bikes, depositing Rs. 20,000 with it. As further stated rest amount was financed by the appellant to be paid back in twelve instalments of Rs. 2,610. As per complainant in spite of timely repayments, the appellant in collusion with opposite party No. l, Shree Bikes has withhold the NOC and other papers required by the complainant. As such the complaint was filed on 29.3.2006 for compensation of Rs. 90,000 and release of NOC. 3. The opposite parties appeared on notice to deny any deficiency. The supplier stated that he has delivered the motor cycle on being financed by opposite party No. 2, the appellant and the dispute if any between the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Ranchi
Mohan Lal Roy, Member: 1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11th May. 2009, passed in consumer case No. 39/2008 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Giridih, whereby and whereunder the learned District Consumer Redressal Forum, Giridih dismissed the complaint filled by the appellant against the opposite parties. 2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant has availed services of the O.P. members by way of financing money for purchase of TATA LPT 2515 on 31.8.2007 after payment of Rs. 1,17,725 as down payment to the O.P. member who in turn financed Rs. 10,30,000 excluding insurance charges to the concerned dealer and fixed EMI of Rs. 31,885 approximately payable in 45 monthly installment by the complainant and also paid Rs. 4,000 as agreement amount. Thereafter due to default in payment of EMI the O.P. members charged Rs. 40,000 as DPC for some months and for default again the complainant has paid Rs. 2,000 as DPC but the O.P. deliberate...
Tag this Judgment!