Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. The aforesaid eighteen Transfer Applications, have been filed by the applicants/complainants, for the transfer of Consumer Complaint Cases, referred to above, from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh, to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh, [(hereinafter to be referred as District Forum (II) and District Forum (I) respectively)]. 2. The complaints, aforesaid, filed by the applicants/ complainants, with regard to the deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties/non-applicants, on account of delay, in handing over possession, as also defective and incomplete construction of flats, were dismissed by District Forum (II), vide order dated 29.06.2009, by District Forum-II. The appeals against the order dated 29.06.2009 were filed, in this Commission, which were allowed, vide order dated 09.04.2010, and the complaints were remanded back. It was stated that, in paragraph n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Sham Sunder(Retd.), President: 1. The facts, in brief, are that the complainants were looking for a decent residential accommodation/plot, at Mohali. Allured by the rosy picture, projected regarding the sale of plots, by the Opposite Party, vide its repeated advertisements, in the news papers, the complainants visited its site, and inquired about the status of construction, as they wanted a plot, as early as possible, so as to enable them to start construction thereon, within a year, from the booking thereof. It was stated that the representative of the Opposite Party, assured the complainants that the development activity, at the site was in full swing, and if they booked the plot, the possession thereof, complete in all respects, would be handed over to them, within a year i.e. 12 months, from the date of booking of the same. It was further assured to the complainants that almost all the basic amenities, at the site had been completed. On such assurance, the complainants applied to t...
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 30.10.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant) and directed Opposite Party No.3 (now respondent no.3), as under:- œFor the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is allowed only against OP No.3 because he sold a cold drink (Frooti) to the complainant, in which a black object was floating inside the bottle, due to which, it could not be consumed by the complainant and the deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3 is proved on this count. At the same time, in the absence of any chemical report, there is no definite evidence on the file to prove that the contents of the bottle were injurious to health. OP No.3 is accordingly directed to make payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant f...
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 23.12.2013, 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 Sh.Rajeev Sood, Chartered Accountant, working as a loan Agent, for the Opposite Parties, approached the complainant for transfer of its loan, against residential House No.1, Sector 12, Panchkula, from Kotak Mahindra Bank to them (Opposite Parties), at the lower rate of interest, than its (Kotak Mahindra Bank) prevailing interest and also to increase the loan amount. It was stated that the complainant provided various documents, to the said Agent. The complainant was offered loan sanction letter dated 19.03.2013 Annexure C-2. It was further stated that, on 22.03.2013, the representative of Kotak Mahindra Bank came to the complainant, and offered enhanc...
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 28.11.2013, 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 an international hockey player. He went to the United States of America, on his sports tour, in May, 2012. For his return journey, he booked his air ticket, through China Airlines, from San Francisco (USA) to India. He travelled in Flight No.C10003 SFO to TAIPAI, in economy class, on 15.06.2012, through China Airlines. Thereafter, the complainant came back to India, through the same Airlines, on 16.06.2012. It was stated that there was four hour stay, in Taipai, because the passengers were shifted to another flight of the same Airlines i.e. Flight No.C10071. It was further stated that the complainant was carrying two bags, containin...
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 14.08.2013, 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 Parties (now appellants) as under:- œ12. So finding merit in the complaint, we allow this complaint against the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay the fund value of the balance units in the name of complainant immediately without deducting any surrender charges taking the NAV of today i.e. 14.08.2013.The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and the harassment caused to the complainant. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.13. The order be complied with by the Opposite Parties within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.? 2. The f...
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 12.11.2013 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 in pursuance of the persistent advertisement published, on behalf of the Opposite Party, the complainant approached it for arrangement of student visa for Australia. It was stated that in the first meeting, the Opposite Party demanded original certificates of educational qualifications/test to confirm the eligibility conditions, which were supplied to it. It was further stated that after scrutinizing all the documents, the Opposite Party entered into an agreement of arrangement of student visa for Austraila with the complainant on 15.3.2010. It was further stated that the complainant paid Rs.25,000/- as retainer fee and the University registration fee of Rs.23,000/- ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Padma Pandey, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.12.2013, 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. In brief, the facts of the case are that, the complainant, a reputed businessman, in order to attend a marriage ceremony at Udaipur, purchased air tickets of Air India through makemytrip.com from Chandigarh to Delhi and Delhi to Udaipur vide Annexure C-1. The complainant reached the airport well in time, and made check-in. It was stated that the black baggage of the complainant, which was containing a total sum of Rs.1,81,000/- was also passed through X-ray machine and thereafter a security strip was tightened around it with sticker. Thereafter, the complainant along with his family boarded the flight and reached Udaipur (Ann.C-2 and C-3)). It was further stated that the complainant on reachi...
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 21.12.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it accepted the complaint filed by the complainant and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant) as under:- œNow it is proved on record that the OP has failed to prove that the complainant was committing theft of energy on 30.9.2010. As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the demand with regard to sundry charges raised in the bills from the month of October, 2010 to June, 2011 is ordered to be quashed. The OP is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. This order be complied with by the OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant was a consumer of the tubewell electricity connection installed at his residence. He was paying th...
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 4.11.2013, 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. In brief, the facts of the case are that, the complainant purchased Magic IRIS 4 STR vehicle, bearing Temporary No.CH-45T-3283, for earning his livelihood vide Ann.C-1. Unfortunately, the said vehicle met with an accident on 29.11.2012 for which DDR No.43, dated 30.11.2012 was lodged with the Police Station of Sector 36, Chandigarh (Ann.C-2). The vehicle was taken to Opposite Party No.1, for accidental repairs, which gave estimate dated 1.12.2012 for Rs.40,530/-. Thereafter, the complainant visited Opposite Party No.1, a number of times, upto 15.3.2013 to take delivery of the vehicle after repairs, but it was not repaired by then. It was stated that on 4.4.2013, an official of Oppo...
Tag this Judgment!