Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member: 1. This is an appeal filed by the OP, received on transfer from Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, against order dated 8.5.2002 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jagadhri (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 357 of 11.8.2000. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Maruti Omni Van of the complainant bearing No. HR-2E/6504 was insured with National Insurance Company Limited (OPs) vide policy No. 420402/98/6146790 and certificate No. 46790 dated 30.6.1998 to 29.6.1999. The driver of the complainant namely Sh.Pawan Kumar was having a valid driving licence issued from the Licensing Authority, Jagadhri which was valid for light vehicles (Car-Jeep, etc.). On 7.6.1999, the car met with an accident and the van was badly damaged. The claim was lodged with the respondents and the complainant had spent a sum of Rs. 1,15,000 for the repair of the vehicle. All the documents we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Member: 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant (complainant) against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 17.9.2009 passed in complaint case No. 662 of 2009 : Sh. Satish Bansal v. ICICI Bank. 2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he opened an account bearing No. 091001502265 with the OP Bank. The case of the complainant is that on 3.4.3009, when he withdrew the amounts of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1,000 at 15:54:09 and 15:55:18 on 3.4.2009 from SBI ATM at Chandigarh Railway Station, the said amounts did not came out of the ATM but the same were debited from his account. The complainant, it was averred, made a complaint with the OP Bank on 6.4.2009 who told him to wait for five days. As per the complainant, the matter was being lingered on by the OP Bank on pretext or the other and finally, the said amounts were received by the complainant on 6.5.2009. Alle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member: 1. This is an appeal filed by the complainant against order dated 4.2.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 760 of 2008. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that complainant is employed with Bank of Baroda who invited applications from its employees by taking loan from some other public sector bank in respect of their February, 2006 public issue. The complainant opened a D-mat account bearing No. 123390 with K and A Securities and after taking the loan, he applied for the Banks public issue and allotted 240 shares which went into his D-mat account. Thereafter the complainant closed his earlier D-mat account and opened a new account with OPs on 8.4.2006 and transferred the 240 shares to his new D-mat account. On 14.6.2006 the complainant further purchased 50 shares of Bank of Baroda and thereafter he availed the online trading fac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Pritam Pal, President: 1. This appeal by opposite party is directed against the order dated 3.1.2002 passed by District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon whereby complaint case No. 1207 of 1999 filed by Hoshiar Singh-complainant was allowed and the penalty amount of Rs. 18,385 imposed by OP was quashed being illegal and unsustainable. 2. The parties in this judgment hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Forum. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant who is an agriculturalist got installed tubewell connection in his agricultural land bearing electricity connection No. CAG-55 in village Bohrakalan and he was paying the electricity charges since 1985 and was not under any arrears of electricity charges. The complainant was previously using the motor of 5 Horsepower but due to low level of water he got sanctioned load for using the motor of 10 horsepower. It was alleged that the OP issued letter bearing memo No. 3804 dated 19.1.2001 imposi...
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 15.5.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby the complaint bearing No. 1522 of 2008 filed by Dr. Saraswati Gupta, respondent /complainant was allowed in the following terms: In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the OPs retained the amount of Rs. 9,600 x 2=Rs. 19,200 since 1.2.2002 till 27.6.2008 when the amount was actually paid to the complainant. The OPs are, therefore, bound to pay interest on the said amount of Rs. 19,200 @ 8% per annum for the said period. The amount shall be paid within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which the OPs would be liable to pay the same along with penal interest @ 12% per annum since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 22.12.2008 till its payment along with litigation costs of Rs. 2,500. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Pritam Pal, President: 1. This appeal by complainantSantosh is directed against the order dated 9.10.2001 passed by District Consumer Forum-Hisar whereby complaint case No. 560/2001 filed by her was dismissed. The parties in this judgment hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Consumer Forum. 2. Briefly the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant who is a household lady went under tubectomy operation on 16.6.98 conducted by OP vide serial No. 67/223. She obeyed all the instructions after the operation as given to her by OP but due to his sheer negligence in conducting the operation, she gave birth to a female child on 7.9.2000. The complainant filed complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs. 3 lacs as she had no source of income to maintain the female child which had born after the tubectomy. 3. On the other hand, the case of opposite party before the District Forum was that complainant was not consumer as she d...
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 27.7.2009 whereby while deciding his complaint bearing No. 1488 of 2008 the District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh had allowed him only refund of Rs. 195 and no compensation was granted. The parties in this judgment hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Forum. 2. Put shortly the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant on 6.10.2008 at 12.30 p.m. paid Rs. 195 to OP No. 2 for recharge of his mobile No. 9988048422 but no recharge was made nor the money was returned in spite of making many requests, due to which he had to suffer mental, physical and professional loss. Hence, alleging deficiency and unfair trade practice complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum seeking compensation of Rs. 3,50,000. 3. On the other hand, the case of OP No. 1 before the District Forum was that he had no concern with the business activity of M/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Pritam Pal, President: 1. This appeal by Vipin Batra-complainant who is husband of respondent No. 2 Mrs. Manishwar Kaur, a partner of firm namely M/s. Northern Coil, New Delhi is directed against the order dated 16.10.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No. 692 of 2009 was dismissed on the ground that the issue involved had already been decided against him (complainant) upto the Honble National Consumer Disputes redressal Commission, New Delhi. The parties in this judgment hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Forum. 2. Put shortly the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant and OP No. 2 were partners in M/s. Northern Coir Firm, which ultimately dissolved by OP No. 2 on 25.9.2006 vide Annexure C-1. It was alleged that the concerned lender branch of OP No. 1 Bank converted the account of said partnership firm to sole account with OP No. 2-Manishwar Kaur as beneficiary and it was ef...
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 21.11.2002 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak whereby while disposing of the complaint of respondent/Complainant bearing No. 353 of 2001, appellants were held entitled to charge 50% of the bill amount i.e. Rs. 5,050 and remaining amount of Rs. 5,050 was ordered to be refunded to the complainant within a period of 60 days from passing of the impugned order. The parties in this judgment hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Forum. 2. In nutshell, suffice it to say that an electric connection bearing A/C No. ABSP-4 was installed in the name of Mahant Shreo Nath and after his death, complainant being his legal heir was consuming the electricity supplied by opposite parties. It was alleged that the bill No. 6681 dated 13.6.2001 served upon complainant by OPs for a sum of Rs. 27,025 included a sum of Rs. 10,099 on account of additional surcharge. ...
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 14.11.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby the complaint filed by Sh. Gurpreet Singh, respondent/complainant was allowed in the following terms: In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed to refund Rs. 27,545 which were overcharged as interest by them due to their own negligent act along with Rs. 25,000 as compensation to the complainant for mental and physical harassment and inconvenience caused to him in their hands. The Complainant is also held entitled to costs of litigation quantified at Rs. 5,500. The amount shall be paid by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, they would be liable to pay the same, along with penal interest at the rate 12% per annum since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 12.5.2008, til...
Tag this Judgment!