Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.01.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-1, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainants (now appellants). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainants, in order to purchase a house, entered into an agreement with the vendor, and, consequently, applied for home loan, to Opposite Party No.1, through Opposite Party No.2, being its (Opposite Party No.1) agent. The complainants submitted all the documents, alongwith a cheque, in the sum of Rs.1103/-, as processing fee, on 09.05.2013 (infact 09.05.2012, as is evident from page 23 of the District Forum file). Opposite Party No.1, after preliminary inspection of documents, approved the housing loan, in principle, as per the terms and conditions mentioned, in the letter dated 15.05.2005 (infact 15.05.2012), Annexure C-3. Accordingly, the...
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 18.12.2012, 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) and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant), as under:- œIn view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed as under :- (i) to pay the amount of Rs.7,02,139/- as assessed by the surveyor in his report (C-11) (ii) to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. (iii) to pay Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses This order be complied with by the opposite party, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.? 2. The facts, in...
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 residential accommodation/ apartment. Accordingly, the complainants approached the Opposite Parties, and booked an apartment, having three bedrooms, super area 1750 square yards, in their project, under the name and style of œThe Views? at Mohali Hills, Mohali, Punjab, vide application dated 15.11.2007, on payment of Rs.7 lacs (i.e. Rs. 4 lacs vide cheque no. 572592 and Rs.3 lacs vide cheque no. 850445), as booking amount. Receipts Annexures C-1 and C-2, both dated 16.11.2007, in this regard, were issued by the Opposite Parties. It was stated that the application of the complainants was accepted, and, as such, they were allotted apartment No.K1-F04-404, Tower No.K, Type-3 Bed Room + 3 Toilets, measuring super area 1750 square feet, @Rs.2,950/- square feet of super area, alongwith car parking space @Rs.1,50,000/- per parking bay, plus (+) Preferential Location Charges (PLC) @ Rs.10...
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 11.02.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant applied for Home Equity Loan, with Opposite Party No.2, which was approved by it, vide letter dated 25.02.2010, copy whereof is Annexure C-1. Loan amount, to the tune of Rs.1,70,00,000/- was sanctioned, in favour of the complainant. Opposite Party No.2, assured the complainant, that it would charge him interest @11.50% per annum, on the loan amount. It was stated that the complainant always paid the installments of loan amount, to Opposite Party No.2, as per the schedule. It was further stated that, on 09.07.2012, Opposite Party No.2, intimated the complainant, vide letter Annexure C-2, that outstanding amount of loan of Rs.1,42,27,9...
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 18.02.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed Consumer Complaint No.619 of 2013, in default of appearance of the complainant (now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, being the owner of car, bearing registration No.PB-11-AR-5881, got the same insured, from the Opposite Parties, for the Insured Declared Value, to the tune of Rs.6,28,166/-, on payment of premium, to the tune of Rs.14,286/-, valid for the period from 15.07.2010 to 14.07.2011. According to the complainant, on 30.06.2011, one Mr. Rajinder Garg, was driving the said car, from Kumar Hatti to Saproon, District Solan, when near Pracheen Shiv Temple, it (car) went out of order, as a result whereof, he parked the same, on extreme left side of the road, and came to his residence. On the morning of 01.0...
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 30.01.2014, 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. In brief, the facts of the case, are that in pursuance of an advertisement, as well as prospectus issued by the Opposite Party, the complainant got admitted his son, namely, Sh. Abhiroop Srivastav for B.A. Degree in 3D Animation and Visual Effects, in August, 2012, on the assurance of the Opposite Party that the said Institute was duly recognized with Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi (IGNOU) and competent to conduct the examination in the aforesaid degree. It was stated that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.80,000/- i.e. Rs.70,000/- in cash and Rs.10,000/- by way of Bank Draft bearing No.009438 dated 19.03.2013, Annexure C-1. It was further stated that it was assured by ...
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 03.01.2014, 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 claiming himself, as the owner of truck, bearing registration No.HR58A-0125, parked the same, on Ramgarh Mubarakpur Road, on 10.10.2011 at around 10.00 P.M. The said truck was insured with Opposite Party No.1, for the Insured Declared Value, to the tune of Rs.9,25,000/-, on payment of premium of Rs.29,042/-, valid for the period from 05.07.2011 to the midnight of 04.07.2012, vide Proposal-cum-Cover Note Annexure C-4. It was stated that the said truck was got financed from Opposite Party No.2. However, on the morning of 11.10.2011, at about 07.00 A.M., the said truck was found stolen. The complainant immediately informed the Police, as ...
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 31.10.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, 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 September, 2010, a representative of Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 (now appellants), approached the complainant, for getting a cashless health Insurance Policy. The complainant and her husband, took ICICI Lombard Health Care-Family Protect 2007- Policy, from Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, valid for the period from 07.09.2010 to 06.09.2011, for the total sum assured, to the tune of Rs.4 lacs, on payment of premium, to the tune of Rs.8,089/-. It was stated that, thereafter, the complainant suffered health problems, in the month of October 2010. She got herself checked from Fortis City Centre, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, on 14.10.2010, where the Doctor advis...
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 17.12.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent No.1), and directed Opposite Party No.1 (now appellant), as under:- œIn the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party No.1 is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.1, and the same is allowed, qua it and the Complainant not being a consumer qua Opposite Party No.2, the present complaint deserves dismissal against it. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to:- [a] To settle the claim of the Complainant on non-standard basis on amount assessed by the Surveyor in his report (Annexure R-9); [b] To pay Rs.10,000/- on account of ...
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 11.02.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent), and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants), as under:- œIn view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly allowed and the opposite parties are directed as under:- i) To refund the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit till payment; ii) To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment; iii) To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr. No.(i) and (ii) above shall carry interest @18% per an...
Tag this Judgment!