Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Baldev Singh Sekhon, Presiding Member 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant company against the order dated 25.3.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which their complaint against the respondents/opposite parties was dismissed. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant company was having an electric connection, bearing account No.LS-26 and it had been paying all the electricity consumption charges. Opposite party No.1 issued a notice, vide memo dated 3.1.2007 in which a demand of Rs.49,14,816/- was raised. It filed reply to the said notice and the demand was reduced by the opposite parties to Rs.12,95,820/-, vide letter dated 18.1.2007. Thereafter, it filed an appeal No.MA 28 of 2007 before the learned Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, who accepted the appeal and set aside the letter dated 18.1.2007, vide order dated 21.10.2008 and directed opposite party No.1 for taking fre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Baldev Singh Sekhon, Presiding Member. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 27.11.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which his complaint against the respondents/opposite parties was dismissed. 2. The facts, as necessary for the disposal of this appeal, are that the complainant, alongwith his wife, Manjit Kaur, was holding a joint saving bank account No.8538/17 with opposite party No.1. A joint FDR No.359715 for Rs.60,000/- was also got obtained having maturity date 24.6.1993. He got this FDR renewed on 30.6.1993 for next six months with effect from 24.6.1993. The joint holder of the FDR, Manjit Kaur died on 12.5.2000. The case of the complainant is that he was working in the Punjab Police, and therefore, could not contact opposite party No.1 for renewal/withdrawal of the maturity proceeds on 24.12.1993. He contacted the opposite parties for release of the payment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 28.5.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant against them was allowed and they were restrained from recovering the amount, in question, from the complainant and were further directed to pay Rs.500/- as litigation expenses. 2. The facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant had taken an electric connection No.SP22/0616 in his shop from the opposite parties and he had been regularly paying the bills for the electric energy consumed by him. The opposite parties issued memo No.1877 to him on 8.11.2007 raising a demand of Rs.12,332/- alleging that he had consumed excess units than billed. His meter, which was working properly, was changed by them in his absence. Earlier bills were issued on 15.4.2007 and 17.3.2007 on average consump...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party No.2 against the order dated 11.5.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant firm was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to overhaul the account for a period of six months prior to the date of checking and issue fresh electricity bills in accordance with Regulation 21.4 (g) and to refund Rs.80,000/- deposited by the complainant in terms of the stay order dated 27.2.2008. They were further directed to pay compensation of Rs.6,000/-, including cost of litigation, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, was dealing in the business of providing telephone services in Punjab under the brand name CONNECT, for which it was us...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 10.8.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which his complaint against the respondents/opposite parties was dismissed. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant had an electric connection, bearing account No.K-55 KE 620816 F for domestic purpose, at his residence and he had been regularly paying the electricity bills for the electricity consumed by him. On 25.1.2009, the opposite parties issued a bill of Rs.69,320/- pertaining to the period from 4.11.2008 to 4.1.2009, which included Rs.69,000/- as sundry charges and Rs.320/- for 120 units consumed during the said period. It had no right to recover any amount on account of sundry charges from him. He visited their office a number of times and requested to withdraw the said amount but they lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as œthe complainant?) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 16.10.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana(hereinafter referred as œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No. 517 dated 20.3.2007 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties/respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) on the allegations that he got financed a motor-cycle bearing registration No. PB-10-BP-2001, Engine No. 0056431, Chassis No. 58056362 from the OP and he was further agreed to re-pay the entire loan amount in 36 monthly instalments and Rs. 4878/- was paid as initial payment. The complainant had been paying the monthly instalment to the OP regularly but due to some unavoidable circumstances, the complainant could not pay some monthly instalments and her chequ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The appellants/opposite parties (hereinafter referred as œthe Ops?) have filed the present appeal against the order dated 22.4.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur(hereinafter referred as œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.383 dated 18.9.2008 vide which the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants(hereinafter referred as the complainants) was allowed with direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 18,000/- per acre for 106 kanals 2 marlas land of the complainants alongwith litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/- and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of loss i.e. 21.4.2008 till realization. 2. Complainants filed this complaint through his attorney Surjit Singh as they are residents of Canada. It was alleged that complainant No. 1 owns 74 Kanals 01 Marlas land comprised in Khasra No. 21 situated in the area of Village JiwanArain, Tehsil Jalalabad, Hadba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (inshort CP Act) on the allegations that during the year 2005-2006 she got admission in B.A. 1st Year with OP No. 2 under the control of OP No. 1 and passed B.A. 1styear under Roll No. 53655 and certificate No. 734409 was issued on 27.6.2006 and then she took admissionin B.A. IInd year in the Academic Year 2006-07 with OP No. 2 and accordingly, she appeared in B.A. IInd year and passed that class underUniversity Roll No. 235288 and then she got admission in B.A. IIIrd year in the academic year 2007-08 and deposited there quired admission fee. However, the Result Section issued slip in which her result reveals R.L. but the official had written her marks in B.A. IInd year as 425/800 and result passed and when she visited the opposite party to get the original details marks sheet of B.A. IInd year then their official name, Pushpa Rani d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The appellant/complainant (hereinafter called œthe complainant?) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 4.8.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.377 dated 19.6.2008 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite party on the allegations that the complain ant is consumer of OP having connection No. C21CL06021W and is regularly paying the bills. He has made all the payments for the bills raised on the complainant. However, the opposite party issued bill dated 10.6.2008 payable by 25.6.2008 to the complainant wherein Rs.17,590/- has been charged in the head of sundry charges. The complainant asked the Ops that he is regularly paying the bills and how these charges have been levelled against him but the Ops have failed to explain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The appellant/complainant(hereinafter called œthe complainant?) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 20.8.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No. 322 dated 4.5.2009 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainant on the allegations that the complainant is the consumer of the Ops having Account No. A22HG530861 and is regularly making the payment of the bills. It has been further stated that opposite parties issued Bill No. 83224 dated 28.2.2009 for a sum of Rs. 56,140/-. As per his bill average consumption of the complainant from the last 12 months was 116, 123, 515, 473, respectively. OP No. 2 has threatened the complainant through notice/memo No. A22DG140833F that in case the complainant fails to make payment of the abovesaid disputed bill and t...
Tag this Judgment!