Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
(The complainant filed this complaint before this State Commission against the opposite parties praying for the direction to cease and desist from indulging in unfair trade practice and to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- towards compensation for his ordeal and many kinds of suffering caused by their deficiencies and unfair trade practices and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of privacy and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards wastage of time, nuisance, discomfort and distractions from important activities and to pay Rs.4,00,000/- towards sleep deprivation and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards adverse physical health impact and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards harassment, mental agony and annoyance and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards being victimized by aggressive sales pressures, pestering, menace, insults and violation of basic right not to be disturbed and to pay costs. This complaint coming before us for final hearing on 5.3.2014 and hearing the arguments on either side and perused the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
(The complainants filed a complaint before this Commission against the opposite parties praying for a direction to the opposite parties to credit all the payments made by the complainant from to in OCC account and recalculate the amount payable under term loan with interest till date and to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs. This complaint coming before us for final hearing on 07.03.2014 and heard the arguments on the side of the complainants this Commission made the following order:) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The complaint placed before us by the registry to determine the maintainability of the complaint. 2. The complainants represented by its Managing Partner seeking reliefs for the directions to the opposite parties to credit all the payments made by the complainant to the OCC account and recalculate the amount payable under the term loan with interest till the date and to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
(The complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite part to refund a sum of Rs.95,00,000/-, to pay a Rs.3,00,000/- for damages, and also to direct the opposite party to pay a Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of the complaint. This complaint coming before us for hearing finally on 19.3.2014. Upon hearing the arguments of the complainant counsel, perusing the documents, this commission made the following order in the open court:) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The complaint filed by the complainant is placed before us to decide the maintainability of the complaint. 2. The complainant being the Export Company represented by the Executive Director filed the complaint seeking the relief for refund of Rs.95,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- as damages and to pay Rs.50,000/- as costs from the opposite party which is also a company alleging deficiency in service failed to render the service according to the MOU for develo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
(The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain reliefs. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to modify and enhance the compensation the order of the District Forum in CC. No.83/2008 dt.30.09.2010. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 17.3.2014. Upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court:) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties prayed for directions to supply of refill gas cylinder in time and to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and Rs.3,000/- as costs. 3. The District Forum after considering both sides materials, dismissed the complaint by finding that the comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
(The Respondent is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain relief. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant / opposite party filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.20/2005, dated 20.10.2010. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 19.03.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant being the manufacturing sugar mills and selling of sugar bags stacked and the unsold sugar in bags are to be stacked in their godown for which they availed the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from the opposite Party covering the period from 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004 for the value of Rs.35,00,000/-. During the first week of February 20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
(The Appellants are the complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellants / complainants filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.38/2007, dated 12.10.2010. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 19.03.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side , perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member The unsuccessful complainants are the appellants. 2. The appellants filed this appeal against the opposite parties claiming the amount of Rs.19,99,000/- including Rs.17,56,349/- under the peril policy for the goods destroyed due to flood and water cyclonic effects which was repudiated by the respondents / opposite parties on the ground that the claims were not proved in a proper manner a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain reliefs. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the appellants / opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in CC. No.84/2006 dt.26.06.2008. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 14.3.2014. Upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court:) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are the appellants. 2. The respondents/complainant purchased 89Kgms seeds of ground nuts from the 3rd opposite party on 22.12.2005 on the assurance of 1 and 2 opposite parties regarding the yield to the extent of 80% and sowed the seed by engaging labours and making other expenses to the extent of Rs.10,000/- and as assured by the oppos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
(The Appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum rejected the complaint as not maintainable. Against the said order, the appellant / complainant filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CCSR.No.267/2013, dated 22.07.2013. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 10.03.2014, upon hearing the arguments on the side of the appellant, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The complainant is the appellant. 2. The appellant / complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum which was entertained in SR.No.267/2013, after hearing the maintainability of the complaint the District Forum rejected the complaint under Sec.12(3) of the Consumer Protection Act. 3. Aggrieved by the same the complainant filed this appeal contend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
(The Appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain relief. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant / complainant filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.302/2009, dated 28.02.2011. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 19.03.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side , perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant had demat account with the opposite party with specific ID Number and had certain transactions in which she found all of a sudden some unauthorized transactions had been taken place without knowledge of the complainant and thereby the opposite party demanded a sum of Rs.1,92,682.58 due to opposite partys person one Mr.Baskaran h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay the loss of money Rs.1,05,000/- and also to direct the opposite parties Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages and mental agony. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in C.C. No.788/2004 dt.23.04.2010. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 17.03.2014. Upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court:) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The complainant having current account transactions with the opposite parties bank came to know that a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- was paid and the basis of two stolen cheques for Rs.45,000/- and Rs.60,000/- res...
Tag this Judgment!