Court : Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur
1. In all the above appeals since the order dated 21.5.2007 passed by the District Forum II, Jaipur is under challenge, the same have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. The Savvy Corporation ( hereinafter reffered to as œthe Company?) has prayed for enhamcement of the compensation as also preponing the interest from prior date whereas the Consolair ( hereinafter referred to as œthe Shipping Agency? ) as also Royal Jordanian ( hereinafter referred to as œthe Airlines? ) have challanged the findings and directions of the District Forum against them. The District Forum vide impugned order dated 21.5.2007 while allowing the complaint of the Company has directed the Shipping Agency as also the Airlines to pay a sum of Rs. 4,12,319/- with interest as also other expenses. Mr.Rajesh Maharshi counsel for the Shipping Agency as also Mr.Namish Nigotia counsel for the Airlines while making great stress on two documents filed by the complainant alle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur
The matter appears to have chequered history. A complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant before the District Forum on 29.09.2003 with the allegation that inspite of deposit of the entire amount on different dates the concerned plots so booked by the complainant has not been sold to him. The District Forum vide ex-parte order dated 07.01.2004 directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.93,100/- with interest to the complainant. However, the State Commission while partly allowing the appeal filed by the appellant remanded the matter back to the District Forum vide order dated 29.03.2005 to decide the dispute after hearing both the parties. The District Forum again vide order dated 12.01.2006 while allowing the complaint directed the appellant to refund the amount of Rs. 1,23,100/- with interest from the date the amount deposited by the complainant on three different dates. Hence the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the plots in dispute had alre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur
1. Both the aforesaid appeals arise out of the judgment dated 27.04.2012 of the learned District Forum, Jaipur 3rd Jaipur ( hereinafter refered to as the DCF ) in complaint no.418/2012 ( 330/08) titled Padamchand Jain and ors. Vs. Monilek Hospital and ors., whereby the complaint of the complainants was allowed and the hospital and the doctor were directed to make payment of Rs. 11 lakhs as compensation and Rs. 5000/- as cost of proceedings to the complainants. 2. The first appeal has been filed by the Monilek Hospital and Dr.A.K.Sharma ( hereinafter referred to as the hospital and Dr.Sharma ) whereas the second appeal has been filed by the complainants. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present matter are that the son of complainants no. 1 and 2 Anant Kumar Jain was having some urine problem with headache and he consulted Dr.Sharma at his residence. Dr.Sharma diagnosed that it was a matter of kidney failure and suggested transplantation of kidney for which he gave an estimate of ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur
Ashok Parihar, President, J. The respondent/ complainant retired from Central Government service on 31.10.2001. He received the retiral benefits only on 07.02.2002. It appears that the Central Government notified a Relief Bonds Scheme for the retired central government employees. The post maturity interest on Relief Bonds issued under the scheme was changed from time to time from the year 1987 and ultimately the same was made 8% per annum w.e.f. 01.03.2002. However, by subsequent notification dated 22.04.2002 the investment under the above scheme could be made only within three months of receiving the retiral benefits. As has come on record after receiving the retiral benefits the complainant/respondent invested Rs. 3 lakhs under the above scheme by which on maturity after five years he was to receive Rs.1480.25 on every thousand rupees bonds. Subsequently on maturity of the bonds the respondent/ complainant was paid only Rs. 3 lakhs on 18.5.2007 without any interest as per the scheme....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur
1. Since on similar set of facts common order passed by the District Forum, Tonk in nine complaints is under challenge, all the above appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. All the above nine complainants are residents of a small township Niwai in District Tonk of Rajasthan. To encourage small saving scheme a Special Senior Citizen Saving Scheme was launched by the Central Government in the year 2004. Being the senior citizens all the nine complainants deposited Rs. 27 lacs in their individual account of Rs. 1 lakh each at different times between 2006-2007. After depositing the above amount under the scheme referred above, the complainants were also paid regular interest on the amount deposited by them upto December 2008. However, as has been alleged by the appellants a notice dated 28.7.2009 was issued to all the complainants that in view of some audit objections all the accounts opened by them under the particular scheme were irregular and aga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur
This appeal has been preferred against the order of District Forum, Jhunjhunu dated 19.5.2010 by which the complaint was dismissed as presented before the period of limitation. The appellant had applied to the respondents for allotment of a house under MIG category in the year 1985. He presented a complaint against the respondents in the year 2010 that he was still not allotted a house. The respondents submitted that a house was reserved for the appellant and he was asked to deposit the seed money vide their letters dated 11.2.2000, 24.4.2001, 5.10.2001 and 15.10.2001 but the appellant did not deposit the seed money, hence his allotment was cancelled on 6.11.2001. The notice of cancellation was given to the appellant on 25.11.05 and refund of his registration money was sent to him vide their letter dated 21.12.09. As is apparant from the record, the respondents took four years to inform the appellant about cancellation of the registration and then took another four years in refunding t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur
The State Commission: This appeal has been filed against the order of the District Forum, Pali dated 10.11.05 by which the complaint of the appellant/ complainant was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant /complainant had established a brick klin in village Mandal after taking financial assistance from the Central Cooperative Bank. Appellant had taken a insurance cover for Rs. 11 lakhs which covered the risk to his project by flood, fire etc. The complainant stated that on 29.6.02 there was heavy rainfall in the region. At that time around 50,000 bricks in the klin were being processed. Due to rainfall the water entered the chimny resulting into blast and his whole project was damaged. He stated that labourer's residential quarters, office building, furniture and other belongings were destroyed. He suffered a loss of Rs. 10 lakhs. He had stated that he informed the respondent no.3 ( the bank ) on the same day on telephone about this incident. Respondents no. 1 and 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur
Ashok Parihar, President: 1. Both the appeals are directed against order dated 16.3.2006 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur II by which while allowing the claim of the complainant in case of medical negligence, the hospital and the concerned doctor have been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 57,542 for the medicines and Rs. 75,000 plus Rs. 2,000 for mental agony and other expenses. 2. It has been alleged by the complainant that he was admitted in Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur on 19.3.1998 complaining pain in right leg/hip and was under treatment of Dr. Shailendra Srivastava working in the hospital. The concerned doctor diagnosed him as suffering from Pyogenic Septic and treatment was given accordingly. The complainant was discharged from Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Jaipur on 2.5.1998. 3. Not getting the proper relief the complainant consulted Dr. C.S. Sharma of SMS Hospital, Jaipur on 9.12.1998 and after various investigations, x-rays and blood tests the complaina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur
Ashok Parihar, President: The complainant is working in Rajasthan Police Department. The first child baby Manisha was born on 16.9.2001 at Nagpur. It has been alleged that baby Manisha was under regular medical care of respondent no.3 Dr.Ashutosh Jindal working in respondent hospital. Initially four polio drops had already been given to baby Manisha two at Nagpur and subsequent two at Jaipur in respondent Hospital. The baby Manisha was taken to the respondent hospital on 10.8.02 due to sudden illness. Dr.Ashutosh Jindal prescribed injection of Keftra in addition to some other medicine. It has been alleged that due to intramuscular injection of Keftra given by Dr.Ashutosh Jindal himself sciatic nerve of the right lower limb was damaged resulting in sensory loss and foot drop. Since proper medical treatment was not given in the respondent hospital the baby was taken to SMS Hospital, Jaipur. The Neurologist Dr.Anjani Kumar Sharma in SMS Hospital,Jaipur after examining the baby on 28.9.02 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur
Husband of the respondent complainant took an Endowment Insurance with Profit Policy from the appellants. The proposal form was signed and sent to the appellants on 8.8.07 and the policy of Rs.85,000/- was issued on 20.8.07 w.e.f. 9.8.07. The husband of the complainant died on 7.9.09. However, the claim was rejected by the appellants on 28.3.2010 on the ground of suppression of facts in regard to earlier disease of Diabities and Vertigo. The District Forum,Ajmer vide impugned order dated 7.7.2011 while allowing the claim directed the appellants to pay the complainant the insured amount of Rs.85,000/- with interest alongwith Rs.1500/- as expenses. After hearing the counsel for the appellant, we have carefully gone through the material on record. On behalf of the appellants only an affidavit of officer incharge from the legal cell has been filed who did not have any personal knowledge of the facts. As a matter of fact the affidavit of the agent who sent the proposal form after geting it ...
Tag this Judgment!