Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
J. Bag, ld. Member, J. The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 08. 02. 2013 of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-I , Kolkata, in CDF/Unit-I / Case No.427/10, whereby, the complaint was allowed on contest with cost against OP No.1 and ex parte without cost against OP No.2 . The complaint case, in brief, was as follows: The Complainants father (natural guardian of the minor, namely, Master Aditya Poddar) had taken a Hospitalization Benefit Policy (2007) from the New India Assurance Company Ltd. for self and members of his family including minor sons on payment of premium of Rs.3,509/- only. The policy was renewed from time to time till 01.05.2011. In May, 2010, the Complainants son, ( Master Aditya Poddar) had some pain in groin area . The consulting Doctor diagnosed the ailment to be a case of Inguinal Hernia and advised for surgery. The Complainant in terms of the policy filed a Mediclaim Form issued by OP No.1 for the period of treatment and all t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Tarapada Gangopadhyay, Member, J. The present Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order no. 29 dt. 10.10.12 of the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata, passed in CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 200/2009, dismissing the Complaint. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, which are relevant and pertinent for adjudication of the case, are set out hereinafter. The Appellant/Complainant, accompanied by other 10 fellow travellers including two children, booked four rooms with UBI Gariahat Branch Employees Holiday Home and Welfare Society at their Rajgir Holiday Home, Keshabasram by name, for the period from 24.3.2008 to 26.12.2008 against charges of ` 3,000/-. After reaching the said Holiday Home on 24.12.2008 the Complainant found the condition of the Holiday Home deplorable, and met with lack of services like absence of light in the staircase, big openings on the door panels, leakage of water from upper floor in the bathroom accompanied by unhygienic condition etc. Despit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Kalidas Mukherjee, President This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I allowing the complaint and directing the OPs jointly and severally to pay Rs.1,33,077/-, Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of communication of the order failing which the interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue on the aforesaid amount till realisation. The case of the Complainant/Respondent, in short, is that the Complainant took the membership of OPs by paying the amount of Rs.1,33,077/- by way of EMI through his credit card. The Complainant hired the services of the OPs and, as such, he is a consumer u/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C. P. Act. The OPs issued certificate of membership to the Complainant on 31/03/05 which is valid from 09/2005 to 08/2030. Due to shifting from Bombay to Kolkata the Complainant requested the OPs on 17/02/09 through e-mail seeking confirmation of reservation for stay...
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Kalidas Mukherjee, President This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Alipore, South 24-Pargan as in CC 224, 225, 226 and 227 of 2012 allowing the complaints with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainants of each case. The OP was directed to refund the amount deposited by the Complainants after deducting Rs.1,000/- in each case. The OP was also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the Complainants of each case as compensation within 15 days from the date of passing order failing which an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue till the date of realisation. The case of the respective Complainants, in short, is that they got admitted in the OP Institution for PGDM programme. The sum of Rs.1,10,400/- was deposited by each Complainant. Subsequently, they got opportunity of admission elsewhere to pursue MBA course and they sent letter to the College Authority for cancellation of admission and refund of money. It has been alleged in the petition of complaint ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
J. Bag, ld. Member. The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 03.12.12 of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit “II in Case No. CDF/Unit “II / CC No. 169 of 2011 , whereby, the complaint case was allowed on contest in part with cost against OP Nos. 1 and 2 and dismissed on contest against OP No.3. The complaint case, in brief, was as follows: The insured Biswajit Dey, being the husband of the Complainant , had obtained a Group Janata Personnel Accident Insurance Policy from the OP Insurance Company for a sum insured of Rs. 50,000/-(Fifty thousand) only . The said policy holder was a Filed Worker of the Golden Trust Financial Services, being OP No. 3 who issued the insurance certificate No. 4751170000001/4751170030027 for the period from 01.12.200 to 31.11.2015.The Complainant is the wife of the deceased policy holder and also recorded as Nominee of the insured. On 18.12.2008 at about 9AM the insured died by drowning when he fell down...
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Kalidas Mukherjee, President 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Chinsurah, Hooghly in case no.CC 25 of 2011 allowing the complaint with cost of Rs.5,000/- and directing the OPs to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the flat in question in favour of the Petitioners as per terms and conditions of the agreement, to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant within one month from the date of order, in default interest @ 9% p.a. will accrue on the said amount till realisation. The case of the Complainants/Respondents, in short, is that OP No.3 is the sole proprietor of the partnership firm, namely, M/s Narayan Construction. OP Nos.1 and 2 are the owners who executed a power of attorney in favour of Narayan Kangsabanik to construct the building. The OP No.3 constructed the multistoried building. Late Sukhendra Nath Dey, the predecessor-in-interest of the Complainants, during his li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Debasis Bhattacharya, Member Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 18.09.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum, South 24 Parganas in Case No. 115/2012, by which the prayer petition of the Revisionist for impleading her a party in the case has been rejected, giving rise for her revision. In such prayer petition, she made out that the Complainant claimed himself as an owner of two-third share in such premises by his alleged purchase, which property is still unpartitioned and sub judice in the Civil Court at Howrah, and thus hit the principle of lis pendens. The Complainant is still a tenant and enjoying uninterrupted supply of electricity for his tenanted premises from the meter standing in the name of Maya Devi. He initiated T.S. No. 2307/2010 before the Ld. 2nd Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Alipore on the same cause of action and reliefs and obtained an ex parte interim order dated 11.08.2010, against which she preferred Misc. Appeal No. 486/2010, which w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Mridula Roy, Member. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.09.2012 passed by Ld. District Forum, North 24 Pgs. in C.C. Case No. 224/2011 allowing the same on contest with cost of Rs.10,000/- against the O.P. No. 1 and exparete against O.P. No. 2 without cost, directing the O.P. No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs.6,36,666/- along with interest @ 10% per annum over the amount since 16.12.2005 till full realization, further directing the O.P. No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards damage for mental pain and agony cost by the O.P. No. 1 to the Complainant, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards penalty for adopting unfair trade practice which was to be deposited with the S.C.W.F., furthermore directing the O.P. No. 1 to complete entire unfinished work of the entire multistoried building including the flat of the Complainant at once and to handover NOC issued by the local municipality to the Complainant, directing the O.P. No. 1 to comply the entire decree within one month fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Mridula Roy, Member. No. 2/08.04.2014. The record is taken up for passing order on the point of admission. The Complainant in his petition of complaint has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps stating that he, being a businessman dealing with scrap materials, submitted quotation with the O.P. “ Municipality for purchasing scrap and being highest bidder deposited a sum of Rs.52,75,000/- with the O.P. Subsequently, the O.P. by a letter dated 02.04.2012 asked the Complainant to lift the scrap but when the Complainant went to lift the scrap the employee of the O.P. did not allow the Complainant to lift the scrap and thereafter, sold the said scrap to third party on 05.03.2014 by auction which caused loss of business, financial loss, loss of goodwill, loss of interest and lossof reputation for which the Complainant prayed for direction before this Commission upon the O.Ps to refund the price of the scrap along with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.46,83,000/- towards c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
J. Bag, ld. Member. The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 04.02.13 of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Pgs, in CC Case No.68 of 2012, whereby, the complaint was allowed on contest with cost against OP No.1 and dismissed on contest without cost against OP No.2. The complaint case, as filed before the Ld. Forum below, was as follows: The Complainant runs his business as the proprietor of Maa Durga Jewellery. The said business is hypothecated to the United Bank of India , Baruipur, Chowdhury Bazar Branch, Baruipur . He obtained a Burglary Insurance (Policy No. OG 10401000002894) on 05.09.2005 and the said policy was, after renewal, valid from 07. 09. 2009 to 06.09.2010. The policy was issued for Stocks (Mfg.andSale of Gold / Similar Ornaments). Some anomalies being detected by the Complainant in regard to the correct address to be recorded in the policy and the items of risk to be covered as Stock-in -Trade and Stock-in-Transit in place of Stoc...
Tag this Judgment!