Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
K. SAMPATH J. {Open Court} The Opposite party in OP No.15/2002 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was as follows: - During a business tour the complainant had purchased air ticket through the 2nd and the 3rd opposite parties to travel to some places, operated by the 1st opposite party. Starting from 20/9/99, he visited various places in Europe to secure export orders. On 8/10/99, he left Birmingham enroute to Mumbai and on that day he had entrusted and registered three baggages with the 1st opposite party to be delivered to him at Mumbai. The 3rd opposite party had received the baggage in a good condition and assured to deliver the same at Mumbai. On 9/10/99 when the complainant arrived at Mumbai at about 1.30 am he was delivered only two baggages and the third baggage a black leather baggage containing the complainants belongings worth Rs.3 lakhs was not delivered by the 3rd opposite party....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
K. SAMPATH J. {Open Court} The complainant in OP No.411/2000 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (North) is the appellant herein. The grievance of the complainant was that the pay order presented by him for collection was returned by the opposite party for wholly untenable reasons and the opposite party was therefore liable to pay her compensation. 2. The defence set up was that the Bank through which the pay order was sought to be collected viz., State Bank of India, Kodambakkam Branch, had claimed Rs.1,11,000/- as against the pay order value of Rs.1,10,000/- and since this was in excess, the opposite party returned the pay order for the reason excess amount claimed. There was no deficiency in service. 3. The complaint came to be dismissed by the District Forum. As against the dismissal, the present appeal has been filed. 4. It is seen from the records that State Bank of India, Kodambakkam Branch, encoded the pay order value wrongly for Rs.1,11,0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
K. SAMPATH J. {Open Court} The Opposite parties in COP No.1/2002 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chengalpattu, are the appellants herein. The case of the complainant was as follows: - He had a savings bank account in The Little Kanjeevaram Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. He issued a cheque dated 7/9/2001 for Rs.7,000/- to one of his traders after verifying the balance in his passbook which showed the balance as Rs.7,701/-. However, when the cheque was presented, the same was returned with a memo stating insufficient funds. There was a notice issued by the trader. He had also come to the complainants shop on 8/8/2001 and abused the complainant in the presence of the public due to the dishonour of the cheque. Thus, the complainants reputation was spoiled. His business was affected. 2. The defence set up was that the clerk in the bank made a wrong entry; that there was no balance of Rs.7,701/- in the complainants account ; the complainant never had enough fun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
K. SAMPATH J. {Open Court} The complainant in COP No.5/20003 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Villupuram is the appellant herein. Her case was as follows :- On 20/3/2002 a sum of Rs.2,000/- had been withdrawn from her account with the 1st opposite party bank. She had not gone to the 1st opposite party bank at all on that day nor did she send an authorised person to deposit or withdraw any amount from her account. This was brought to the notice of the bank officials and also the Special Officer of the 1st opposite party bank. There was no response. A complaint was sent through her husband by courier. There was no response to this also. A legal notice dated 31/5/2002 was sent to all the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party sent a reply on 14/6/2002 seeking 15 days time to enquire into the matter. Though five months had elapsed, there was no response from the opposite parties and in such circumstances, the complaint came to be filed. 2. The 1st opposite...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
K. SAMPATH, J. The opposite parties in O.P.No.121 of 1997 on the file of the District Forum, Vellore, are the appellants herein. The case as set out in the complaint is as follows: The complainant was a Reader in the Department of Urology Unit-II of Christian Medical College and Hospital, (CMC) Vellore. He was invited to attend the World Congress of Endourology from 11.11.1996 to 14.11.1996 at Melbourne, Australia and the 6th Urological Conference from 22.11.1996 to 24.11.1996 at Malacca in Malaysia. He also wanted to visit for a week Royal Adelaide Hospital in Australia on the invitation from Dr. Paddy Dewan, Paediatric Urologist of the hospital. He approached the first appellant/first opposite party during the third week of September, 1996 for booking Air tickets and for obtaining visa for Australia. He had handed over his passport, letters of invitation to attend both the conferences as demanded by the first opposite party. The first opposite party got visa for the complainant for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
K. SAMPATH J. {Open Court} The Opposite parties 4 to 6 in COP No.14/98 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuddalore, are the appellants herein. The 1st respondent was the complainant before the District Forum. The parties herein will be referred to according to their rank in the complaint. The complainants case was as follows: - He was a permanent resident of Virudhachalam for 30 years and was running a provision shop for 20 years. He was well known to the common public, postal authorities and the municipal employees. His son Ashraf Ali was employed in Dammam, Saudi Arabia. Ashraf Alis friend Amanullah issued a cheque for Rs.25,000/- in favour of the complainant drawn on Canara Bank, Virudhachalam. His son sent the cheque by Registered Post. The 3rd opposite party postman, with ulterior motive, made an endorsement on the letter that there was no such addressee. He returned the cover containing the cheque to the Post Office. The 1st and the 2nd opposite part...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
M.S. JANARTHANAM. J 1. The jurisdictional facts giving rise to the present action may in brevity be stated for understanding the crux of the issue arising for consideration. 2. P.L.C Lakshmanan and Brothers, Cloth Merchant (complainant) is a proprietory concern. Its proprietor is one Mr. P.L.C. Lakshmanan. 3. SMR Parcel Service, Pan Transport and Carriers Ltd. (third opposite party) is located at Chennai-600 056. One Mr. S. Ankappan(first opposite party) and one Mr. N.G. Ravichandran(second opposite party) are respectively agents of the third opposite party at Sankarankoil and Ottanchatram. 4. The second opposite party apart from being an agent of the third opposite party, was also running a business in textiles going by the name Super Textiles. The second opposite party approached the complainant to send Lungis for his business through SMR Parcel Service. On 13.09.1997, the complainant sent the requisite parcel through the first opposite party to the second opposite party through the ...
Tag this Judgment!