Court : Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
C.C. Pant, Member This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 20.07.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 155 of 2009. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000/- to the respondent complainant; Rs. 15,000/- towards mental pain and agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses. The above amount was directed to be paid within a period of 30 days, failing which the above amount was payable together with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the opposite party is engaged in share business. The complainant opened a share account No. DD828 with the opposite party on 29.10.2008. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in the said account on 29.10.2008 for investment in shares and further depos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
C.C. Pant, Member This consumer complaint, under Section 12 read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Shri Satnam Sardul Singh S/o Late Shri Sardul Singh, R/o Sunargaon, Athoorwala, Tehsil Rishikesh, District Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as Complainant) against Shri Arbal Singh S/o Shri Bagad Singh R/o Gram Jhabrawala, Doiwala, Tehsil Rishikesh, District Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as Opposite Party), alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in constructing his house. The complainant has prayed for the following reliefs in his consumer complaint:- i. The opposite party be directed to indemnify to the complainant with the entire amount spent on construction of the house i.e., Rs. 15,36,209/-. ii. The opposite party be directed to indemnify with 40% increase as rise in cost of construction due to inflation and price rise i.e, say Rs. 6,14,483/-. iii. The opposite party be directed to indemnify the complainant for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Oral: C.C. Pant, Member This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 02.11.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 192 of 2012, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellants opposite parties to remove the defects in the subject motorcycle to the full satisfaction of the respondent complainant and in default, to pay sum of Rs. 68,691/- to the respondent. The appellants were also directed to pay sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent. The above amount was directed to be paid within a period of 30 days, failing which the amount was directed to carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant had purchased a motorcycle {Unicorn Dazzler (CBF 15)} from the opposite party No. 1, the authorised dealer of the opposite pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
B.C. Kandpal, President This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 28.08.2011 passed by the District Forum, Chamoli in consumer complaint No. 32 of 2009. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 24,330/- to the respondent complainant; Rs. 2,000/- towards mental and financial agony and Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses within a period of one month, failing which the above amount was directed to carry interest @6% p.a. from the date of the order till payment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is engaged in selling of vehicles. The complainant got a chassis bearing model No. SE/1613/42 booked through Kotdwar branch of the appellant. The cost of the chassis amounting to Rs. 9,03,000/- was deposited through bank draft on 22.05.2009, for which receipt was is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
B.C. Kandpal, President, J. 1. This is insurers appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 18.05.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 60 of 2009. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay the insured amount to the complainant and also to pay sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards damages. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant had purchased a Hospitalisation and Domiciliary Hospitalisation Benefit Policy (Mediclaim Policy) from the opposite party No. 1 The New India Assurance Company Limited (appellant before this Commission) for himself, his wife and son for assured sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- each. The policy was valid for the period from 03.01.2008 to 02.01.2009. Prior to the said policy, the complainant had also previously purchased the same policy in the last year, which was valid fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This revision petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the order dated 16.07.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 19 of 2010, thereby dismissing the application moved by the revisionist opposite party for getting the building material used in the property in question and quality thereof tested from a government laboratory. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as stated in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant has entered into an agreement with the opposite party for construction of his residential house. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party has used sub-standard material and has left certain work incomplete. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. 3. The revisionist opposite party filed written statement before the District Forum, denying the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
C.C. Pant, Member, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 20.10.1993 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 363 of 1993; Sh. Ram Prakash Vs. Sampati Prabandh Adhikari, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, thereby directing the appellant to allot the plot in favour of the complainant on the basis of the registration No. RKS/W-111. During the pendency of the proceedings, the complainant Sh. Ram Prakash died on 04.03.1996 and, therefore, in this appeal, the appellant has initially impleaded his wife Smt. Chameli Devi and son Sh. Gauri Shankar. However, during the pendency of this appeal, Smt. Chameli Devi also expired on 09.08.2007 and on the basis of the order dated 23.04.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rishikesh in Probate Case No. 04 of 2009; Harshit Singhal Vs. Naman Kumar and others, the name of Sh. Harshit Singhal was substituted in place of late Smt. Chameli Devi. 2. Briefly st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 06.06.2007 passed by the District Forum, Nainital in consumer complaint No. 61 of 2006, whereby the District Forum has partly allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties appellants to pay jointly or severally a sum of Rs. 34,745/- to the complainant together with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 1,500/- towards litigation expenses. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is a timber merchant. On 19.10.2005, the complainant had purchased a Chevrolet Tavera car from the opposite party No. 1. The said car was financed by Bank of Baroda. The complainant had given a demand draft for sum of Rs. 8,91,109/- dated 20.10.2005 towards cost of the vehicle to the opposite parties. The vehicle was delivered on 23.10.2005. It is alleged ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
B.C. Kandpal, President: Oral: 1. This is insurers appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 28.08.2009 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 372 of 2007, thereby allowing the consumer complaint against the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and directing the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally litigation expenses of Rs. 1,500/- to the complainant and further directing the opposite party No. 4 appellant to pay sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant towards compensation. The consumer complaint was dismissed against the opposite party No. 3. The learned President of the District Forum vide his dissenting order dated 28.08.2009 has, however, dismissed the consumer complaint. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 have not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Forum. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the compl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.09.2010 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, partly allowing the consumer complaint No. 172 of 2009 and directing the opposite parties appellants to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 31,500/- within 30 days from the date of the order. The District Forum has also clarified in its order that the complainant would return the gas stove and the chimneys to the opposite parties after the said amount is deposited with the District Forum by the opposite parties and the said amount would be disbursed in favour of the complainant thereafter. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Sh. Paripurnanand Raturi had purchased two chimneys and one gas stove with built-in hob from Sh. Brijesh Negi, Propretior, Health Care Appliances, Dehradun opposite party No. 1. These appliances were manufactured by Sunflame Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad opposite party No. 2. After the installation of these applian...
Tag this Judgment!