Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Padma Pandey, Member: 1. This Execution Application has been filed by the complainant/Decree Holder, under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act only) for enforcement of the order dated 26.11.2013, passed by this Commission, in the Consumer Complaint, bearing No.63 of 2013, tilted as œLalit Kumar Dhiman Vs. M/s Yellow Stone Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another vide which the Opposite Parties/judgments debtors were directed as under: œ9. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted, with costs, in the following manner:- i. Opposite Party No.1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.21,60,120/-, to the complainant, within one month, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. ii. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, to the complainant. iii. In case the payment of amount, mentioned in Clause (i), is not made, within the stipula...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.1.2014 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant against the Opposite Party (now appellant) in the following manner:- œ13. In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party is directed to:- [a] To refund Rs.581.13/- to the Complainant; [b] To pay a consolidated amount of Rs.2,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service; 14. The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal under Section 27 A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act only), is directed against the order dated 07.04.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), in Criminal Petition No.18 of 2013, vide which, it dismissed the objection petition, filed by Judgment Debtor No.2/Opposite Party No.2 (now appellant), and directed him to show cause, as to why, he be not punished, in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Act. 2. Consumer Complaint, bearing No.537 of 2012, titled as Sheetal Duggal wife of Anup Kumar and Anup Kumar husband of Sheetal Duggal Vs. State Bank of India Staff Association and another, was filed by the complainants, on 30.08.2012. 3. The District Forum, accepted the said Complaint, vide order dated 26.10.2012, and directed the Opposite Parties, as under:- œAccordingly, we find merit in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.12.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant) as under:- œ21. In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party is directed to :- [a] To Refund the fee of Rs.45,000/- to the Complainant; [b] To pay Rs.1.00 lac on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and harassment to the Complainant; [c] To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation; 22. The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.03.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant is a Private Limited Company formed by its members for earning livelihood by means of self employment. It was stated that the complainant opened one cash credit limit account bearing No.0087008700047036 with the Opposite Party Bank. It was further stated that the complainant engaged Fakir Badshah Carriers, G.T. Road, Sirhind Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, for sending goods from one place to another. It was further stated that the said transporter used to raise bills and the complainant, accordingly, either used to pay the charges through cash or cheque. It was further stated that the complainant gave a cheque to said Fakir Badshah Carriers bearing No.589479...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.03.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it parlty accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent No.1) and directed the Opposite Parties (now one of which is the appellant, and the other two are respondents No.2 and 3), as under:- œAfter going through the facts and circumstances of the case and perusing the record, we are of the opinion that non-providing of proper and timely services by the OPs inspite of said tablet within the warranty period, definitely caused physical and mental harassment to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be partly allowed. Accordingly, the complaint stands partly allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally directed as under:- i) To get the Tablet of the complainant repaired, free of charge, and handover the same to him i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This application for additional evidence by way of placing on record Annexure A1 to A-21, was moved by the appellant, during the pendency of appeal, stating therein that it (appeal) was remanded back by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide order dated 24.2.2014. It was further stated that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, observed in the order dated 24.2.2014 that the State Commission did not decide the application, for taking on record these documents. It was further stated that though the documents, aforesaid, were annexed with the appeal, yet, no separate application was moved by the appellant, for placing the same on record. It was further stated that the appellant, in para No.9 of the appeal mentioned that the documents were shown to the District Forum, at the time of arguments, but it failed to appreciate the same. It was further stated that the complainant being a layman was not aware...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.11.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent No.1) and directed Opposite Party No.1 (now appellant), as under:- œAs the deficiency by Opposite Party No.1 is proved, we allow this complaint against Opposite Party No.1 and direct the Opposite Party No.1 to pay a consolidated compensation of Rs.50,000/- Complainant for the harassment caused to him and his wife. The Opposite Party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation. However, the complaint against Opposite Party No.2 is dismissed, as no allegation of deficiency in service or harassment by them has either been alleged or proved. This order be complied with by the Opposite Party No.1 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified cop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.01.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant being an Engineer and Contractor by profession, got a contract from the Public Works Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh, to construct an Inter-State Link Bridge between Saharanpur (Uttar Pradesh State)/Karnal (Haryana State), over Yamuna River, under the Central Government Scheme. It was stated that, with a purpose to carry out the said work, the complainant purchased a transit mixture, in June, 2010, from M/s Ashoka Leyland Ltd., for the aforesaid purpose. The said vehicle was registered vide Regd. No.CH-01-TA-9498, and was got was insured with the Opposite Parties, as Private Carrier, vide Insurance Policy, Annexure C-1, valid ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Dev Raj, Member: 1. In brief, the facts of the case, are that as the complainant wanted to move into a residential house, in the area of Tri-City, and, for that purpose, was lured by the advertisements of the Opposite Parties. It was stated that there were some individuals, who were willing to transfer their units by entering into an independent agreement with the approval of the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the complainant was told that the one Sh. Jagmohan Marwaha, owner of the unit bearing NoTVM J1-F05-501, was interested in transferring his unit alongwith all the amount he had already deposited with the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the complainant entered into an independent agreement with Sh. Jagmohan Marwaha and paid the amount, which he had paid to the Opposite Parties and, thereafter, the complainant was nominated as the owner of the said unit vide letter dated 26.11.2011, Annexure C-1 by the Opposite Parties. The price of the unit was Rs.51,42,7...
Tag this Judgment!