Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Pritam Pal, President: 1. This appeal by complainant is directed against the order dated 4.9.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No. 835 of 2009 was dismissed. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant with a view to raise construction on his dwelling unit had purchased 85 bags of Ambuja cement from OP No. 3. He used the said cement in constructing one room and kitchen at the first floor of his dwelling unit and due precautions with regard to quality of material and skilled labour were taken at the time of raising construction. However, the complainant noticed that soon after the construction many cracks developed in the entire building including the side wall room ceiling and even on the top roof. The matter was then brought to the notice of OPs, who appointed an engineer. The said engineer insp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member: 1. This is an appeal filed by the OP No. 1 against order dated 10.2.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 197 of 2009. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Sony VA10 Laptop (Model CR 343 with 2 GB) for Rs. 47,000. vide invoice No. 1542 dated 19.8.2008 from OP No. 2 i.e. M/s. Sony Digital Store. After its purchase, the complainant found black patch on the screen of laptop and he approached the OP No. 2 to rectify the said defect but OP No. 2 forwarded the complaint to OP No. 3 i.e. Sony Authorised Service Centre. The complainant visited many times at the office of OP No. 3 to convince that due to manufacturing defect the said laptop started trouble and requested the OP No. 3 to replace or repair at their cost because the aforesaid laptop is under the warranty but no response has been received from ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Pritam Pal, President: 1. This appeal by complainant is directed against the order dated 17.4.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No. 14 of 2009 filed by him was dismissed. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the representative/marketing agent of the OPs approached the deceased father of the complainant for installation of landline phone under corporate scheme for the Chandigarh Chemists Association and on their insistence he deposited Rs. 550 vide cheque dated 6.6.2005 which was duly acknowledged by OPs. The complainant and his father visited OPs many times but the telephone was not installed which the OPs were bound to instal within 3-7 days. Thereafter, the representative/agent of the OPs again visited the complainant and requested him that if he deposited Rs. 560 more, then the telephone would be installed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Pritam Pal, President: 1. This appeal by complainant is directed against the order dated 11.1.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No. 1366 of 2009 filed by him was dismissed. 2. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant on 25.5.2009 tried twice to withdraw Rs. 2,000 from SBI ATM machine installed at Sector 37, Chandigarh but both the times he was unable to withdraw the money from the said ATM machine and got a message on machine Transaction unable to access. The slip for the said message was not printed out at that time by the ATM machine. He then went to the ICICI ATM machine and was able to withdraw Rs. 2,000 from it. Thereafter, the complainant again went to the SBI ATM machine on the same day to know the balance in his account and when he entered the ATM card in the machine he received a statement receipt which showed a withdrawal of Rs. 4,000. The complainant then made written request to the Chief Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Pritam Pal, President: 1. The aforementioned two appeals arise out of one and the same order dated 13.4.2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No. 1026 of 2009 filed by Wing Commander Akhil Deep Sachdeva (hereinafter to be referred as complainant) was allowed with costs of Rs. 5000 against Sahara India Pariwar etc. (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) and OPs were directed to pay Rs. 1.35 lacs which the complainant had paid to them as provisional booking amount for housing flat in Sahara City Homes, Chandigarh. A sum of Rs. 80,000 was awarded as compensation for harassment and mental agony on account of huge delay in settling the case of complainant for allotment of promised flat. OPs were jointly and severally directed to pay the said amount within six weeks from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs were held liable to pay penal interest @ 18% p.a. from 31.12.2004 the date of deposit till payment. 2. In fact appeal No. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Pritam Pal, President: 1. The aforementioned two appeals arise out of one and the same order dated 18.12.2001 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Ludhiana whereby complaint bearing No. 758/2001 filed by Piara Lal (hereinafter to be referred as complainant) was allowed against Punjab State Electricity Board etc. (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) whereby disputed demand of Rs. 58,020 raised vide memo No. 654 dated 20.4.2001 was quashed and the amount deposited against that demand was ordered to be refunded to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till refund. 2. In fact appeal No. 91/2002/PB/RBT/617/2008 has been filed by Punjab State Electricity Board etc. for setting aside the impugned order whereas appeal No. 175/2002/PB/RBT/1829/2008 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation. Since, in both these appeals common questions of law and facts are involved, so, we are deciding these appeals by this common judgment. 3. In nutshell, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Pritam Pal, President: 1. The aforementioned two appeals arise out of one and the same order dated 3.9.2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No. 503/2009 filed by Naresh Malhotra (hereinafter to be referred as complainant) was allowed against ICICI Bank Limited etc. (hereinafter to be referred as OPs) in the following terms: The OPs are directed not to charge any pre-payment charges and if the same has been charged by it during the pendency of the complaint, to refund the same, along with interest @ 8% per annum since the date of receipt of the said amount till the amount is paid back to the Complainant. They are also directed to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation to the Complainant, along with Rs. 5,000 as costs of litigation, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which they would be liable to pay the entire amount along with penal interest @ 12% per annum since the filing of the present complaint i.e. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member: 1. This is an appeal filed by the OP against order dated 3.9.2008 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passing in complaint case No. 73 of 2008. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainants took housing loan of Rs. 13,00,000 from the appellant Bank which was to be paid in 96 EMIs of Rs. 17,724 per month @ 7% p.a (floating). The complainants submitted that as per letter dated 1.12.2004, the rate of interest would be reviewed at the end of three years from the date of final disbursement under the facility but the OP No. 2 intimated the complainant vide their letters dated 22.7.2005, 1.2.2006, 1.7.2006 and 20.1.2004 that the rate of interest has been revised to 7.5%, 8%, 9% and 9.5% respectively. This act of OPs in reviewing and enhancing the rate of interest of home loan before the expiry of three years from the final date of disbursement i.e. 8.12.2004 was totall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Pritam Pal, President: 1. This appeal by complainant Rohit Garg is directed against the order dated 19.11.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No. 976 of 2009 was allowed with costs of Rs. 2,200 and he was allowed damages @ 9% p.a. on the premium amount of Rs. 3,400 which was retained by OP from 6.11.2008 to 21.4.2009. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Consumer Forum. 3. The brief facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated thus: Smt. Neena Rani, mother of the Complainant was approached by one of the agents of OPs namely Ashish Goyal who told her about the benefits of the insurance plans and after understanding the terms and conditions of the HDFC Critical Care Plan, she opted for the same by filling proposal form and paid a premium of Rs. 3,400. OP accepted the premium and issued receipt No. A-1105612 dated 6.11.2008. It was alleged that on account of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Pritam Pal, President: 1. This appeal by opposite parties is directed against the order dated 26.5.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No. 1478 of 2008 filed by respondent/complainant was allowed with costs of Rs. 5,000 and OPs were directed to pay to the complainant a sum of $2872 equivalent to Rs. 94,932 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which OPs were made liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a since 6.6.2008(the date of repudiation of claim) till its actual payment. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Consumer Forum. 3. In nutshell the facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated thus: The complainant had taken Overseas Travel Care Insurance Policy from OP No. 1 before leaving for Singapore for the period from 15.11.2007 to 13.2.2008 and opted for Individual Silver Plan. A copy of the cover note is Annexure C-1. During her t...
Tag this Judgment!