Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal, under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as the Act only), is directed against the order dated 12.07.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, Criminal Petition No.05 of 2010, in the Consumer Complaint, bearing No.669 of 2008, was allowed, and Ashok Kumar, appellant/Opposite Party No.3, as also Capt. Kanwar Sat Pal Singh, Opposite Party No.5, were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of two years, and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. It was also directed that, in default of payment of fine, by Ashok Kumar, appellant/Opposite Party No.3, as also Capt. Kanwar Sat Pal Singh, Opposite Party No.5, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of six months. 2. The complainant (now respondent No.2), filed the Consumer Complaint, bearing No.669 of 2008, on the averments,...
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 16.12.2013 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 Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, as under:- "15. We accordingly, allow this complaint against the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 and direct the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, jointly and severally, to refund the amount of Rs.3.5 lacs paid by the Complainant to them for whatever services they had promised. Since the Complainant had travelled on air tickets, so the amount allegedly paid to the Opposite Party No.4 cannot be ordered to be refunded. Whatever cost has been incurred by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 in preparing the file of the Complainant be construed as compensation for the harassment caused to the Complainant. We cannot order the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 to refund the immigration fee of Rs.13,600/- an...
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 20.01.2014 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. The opposite party is directed as under :- i) To reimburse the medical claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,24,929/-. ii) To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; iii) To pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 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) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.? 2. The fa...
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 27.12.2013 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 complainants and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants) as under:- œ11.In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them, jointly and severally. The Opposite Parties are directed to:- [a] To refund the entire amount received from the Complainants towards the Membership fee, without any deductions; [b] To pay Rs.25,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and harassment to the Complainant; [c] To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation; 12. The above said order sha...
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 17.02.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant) and directed the Opposite Parties as under:- œ12. In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them, jointly and severally. The Opposite Parties are directed to:- [a] To pay a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.7000/- to the Complainant on account of deficiency in service and causing harassment and mental agony; 13. The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be li...
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 10.10.2013, 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 Parties No.1 to 3 (now appellants), as under:- œIn the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, jointly and severally, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are directed to:- [a] To indemnify the Complainant the amount of Rs.3,73,313/- as assessed by the Surveyor in his report dated 20.06.2012 (Annex.R-1) [b] To pay Rs.35,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and harassment to ...
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 05.02.2014, 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 the complainant purchased an Insurance Policy dated 7.2.2008, Annexure C-1, from the Opposite Party, after filling up a proposal form on 9.1.2008, and on paying Rs.50,000/- as premium. The representative of the Opposite Party explained the policy plans and assured the complainant that three regular premiums paid by him shall fetch him an amount with handsome interest after three years plus a Life Insurance Policy. The complainant paid the premium of Rs.50,000/- for next two years, and waited patiently for his amount after that. It was further stated that the complainant received a letter dated 18.1.2013 from the Opposite Party alongwith a cheque of Rs....
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 12.02.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants) as under:- œ12. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed. OPs are found deficient in service so far as the withdrawal of more than Rs.40,000/- from the account of the complainant on 15.8.2012 is concerned. OPs are accordingly directed :- i) To make the payment of an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service. ii) To make the payment of an amount of Rs.5500/- to the complainant towards litigation costs. The liability of the OPs shall be joint and several. 13. This order shall be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, fai...
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 03.02.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants) as under:- œ10. In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them, jointly and severally. The Opposite Parties are directed to:- [a] To reimburse the remaining claim amount of Rs.1,51,201/-; [b] To pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of deficiency in service; [C] To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation; 11. The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they...
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 16.01.2014, 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, while acting upon the information given by the Opposite Parties, in various advertisements issued in leading newspapers, submitted an application dated 8.1.2008 for the allotment of a unit in the Central Plaza (hereinafter to be referred to as Complex), which was a retail offering segment of the project named Mohali Hills, Sector 105, Mohali. It was stated that after negotiations between the complainant and the Opposite Parties, the complainant paid Rs.8,01,689/- to the Opposite Parties, as part payment of the price of unit in question. It was further stated that a Central Plaza Premises Buyers Agreement dated 31.3.2008, Annexure C-1, was executed an...
Tag this Judgment!