Submit your Complaint
mail@consumerredressal.com
 

Submit Complaint

Helpline Number

  +91 99105 32073

Email Address

  mail@consumerredressal.com

National Commission Judgments (April 2012)

 

IFFCO TOKIO General Ins. Co. Ltd. vs. Pratima Jha dated 2012-04-27
This revision petition has been filed against the concurrent findings of the fora below. There is a delay of 36 days in filing the revision petition which, considering the explanation of the appellant, was condoned. The matter was accordingly taken up for consideration on merits. The matter arises out of theft of a Mahindra Bolero vehicle on 21.3.2009. At the time of the theft the vehicle was insured with the revision petitioner IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. The claim under the policy was repudiated by the Insurance Co, on the ground that on the day of the theft the vehicle was not registered with the transport authorities. This amounted to violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was considered a violation of the terms of the insurance policy by the Insurance Co. read more +

SHRI DHANAJAY NAGESH NAIK vs. SHRI SUDAM GOPAL PEDNEKAR dated 2012-04-27
Before taking up this petition for consideration, it will be fruitful to narrate the brief history of this case. Original complainant (respondent herein) filed complaint against opposite parties namely, Shri Nagesh Naik (since deceased) and Mrs. Anusuya Naik (wife of deceased - Nagesh Naik) before the District Forum, on the ground that they have failed to hand over the possession of the flat as well as shop in question, within the stipulated period as mentioned in the agreement read more +

SHRI DHANAJAY NAGESH NAIK vs. SHRI SUDAM GOPAL PEDNEKAR dated 2012-04-27
Before taking up this petition for consideration, it will be fruitful to narrate the brief history of this case. Original complainant (respondent herein) filed complaint against opposite parties namely, Shri Nagesh Naik (since deceased) and Mrs. Anusuya Naik (wife of deceased - Nagesh Naik) before the District Forum, on the ground that they have failed to hand over the possession of the flat as well as shop in question, within the stipulated period as mentioned in the agreement. read more +

Smt. Jyoti Sharma vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority dated 2012-04-27
Brief facts are that plot no.801, Sector-6, Part -1, Urban Estate, Dharuhera, was allotted to petitioner/complainant by respondents, vide allotment letter dated 27.1.1989. Petitioner had deposited 15% amount at the time of allotment on 24.2.1989. She also made payment of various instalments upto 18.10.1995, when physical possession was offered and given to her. Thereafter, petitioner failed to make payment of different instalments. Respondent no.1, vide order dated. 15.7.2002, resumed the plot. read more +

V. Bhaskar Reddy vs. M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. dated 2012-04-26
This revision petition challenges the order dated 12.01.2011 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 1368 of 2008 against the order dated 08.02.2008 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, Tirupati (in short, ‘the District Forum’) in consumer complaint no. 101 of 2007. read more +

M/s. Kiran Krishna Agro Tech. Ltd vs. Smt. P.V. Shantha Kumari dated 2012-04-26
Complainant/Respondent deposited an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 1.8.97 with the Petitioner under its fixed deposit scheme by way of DD No.539265 for Rs.75,000/- and DD No.164894 for Rs.1,25,000/-. Petitioner issued temporary receipt Nos. 717 and 718 respectively and later on issued permanent receipt Nos. 2332 and 2333 on 3.8.97 for Rs.1,00,000/- each. The maturity date of the deposit receipts was 1.3.2001 (i.e. 3½ years). On the date of maturity, Respondent approached the Petitioner and requested it to pay the maturity value of the FDRs, i.e., Rs.4,00,000/-. Petitioner after receiving the duly discharged permanent deposit receipts assured the Respondent that the DD for the total amount of Rs.4,00,000/- would be sent within a week. But, Petitioner did not pay the maturity amount of the deposit receipts to the Respondent. Respondent, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the Petitioner to pay the maturity value of the deposit receipts. read more +

M/s Krishna Auto Sales vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. dated 2012-04-25
This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.07.2005 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint case no. 55 of 2000. By this order, the State Commission came to the conclusion that the opposite party, i.e., the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was justified in repudiating the insurance claim of the complainant’s firm and hence dismissed the complaint. read more +

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s. Prime Health Care Products dated 2012-04-25
The IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. has filed this appeal against the order of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Complaint No.CC/10/3. In the impugned order, the claim of the Complainant (respondent in the present proceedings) was allowed for a sum of Rs.24,15,441/-, which was the amount of net loss, as assessed by the Surveyor appointed by the appellant/Insurance Company. read more +

Prahlad Sharma vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. dated 2012-04-24
This order will decide the objections of the opposite party/Insurance Company in regard to the maintainability of the complaint in the present form before this Commission. The complaint has been filed against the opposite party No.1/Insurance Company and opposite party No.2/Exclusive Motors Private Limited alleging deficiency in service on their part read more +

LAC O.YELLA REDDY vs. NARNE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED dated 2012-04-24
That the petitioner is filing the present revision petition against the orders dated 13.9.2011 passed by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Hyderabad, in F.A.I.A. No.1806/2011 in FA No.455/2009 against CC No. 844 of 2006 wherein the petitioner sought for reopen above FA No.455 of 2009 and set aside order whereby the Hon’ble State Commission was pleased to disallow above Interlocutory Applications filed by the petitioner herein, stating that it does not have powers to Review its own orders dated 16.6.2011 read more +

 

Jaswant Industries vs. Chander Prakash Dewra dated 2012-04-24
The Consumer Complaint No.7 of 2009 was filed by one Shri Chander Prakash Dewera before the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The case of the Complainant was that he had purchased a new Bus chasis of Tata Company and given the same to OP M/s Jaswant Industries, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, for building the bus body with customize fittings. The declared purpose was to use this vehicle for intensive campaigning during the fourth coming elections to the State Legislative Assembly. The OP, being a professional bus body builder, had agreed to deliver the same in June, 2008 but actually delivered the vehicle in October, 2008. Allegedly, a total payment of Rs.20.75 lakhs had also been made to the OP for this purpose. read more +

. Mr. Vasant Shankar Toraskar vs. M/s. Shreeji Builders dated 2012-04-23
This appeal has been filed against the order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Complaint No.207 of 2003. The facts of the case, as seen from the record, are that there was an agreement between the Complainants on the one side and M/s. Virendra Tiwari and Chandershekhar Rane, on the other. In this agreement, executed on 26.11.1987 read more +

President, Jamanlal Goenka College vs. Dr. Rahul Paras Maru dated 2012-04-23
Respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as ‘ Act’) against petitioners (O.Ps.) before District Forum, claiming return of extra amount of Rs. 3,37,500/-, charged from him by respondents for the payment seat for the course of BDS in petitioners’ college. read more +

Pawan Kumar Agrawal vs. Assistant General Manager, Bank of Baroda dated 2012-04-23
Brief facts are that petitioner/complainant is owner of Locker No. 240A, in the respondent’s branch. It is alleged that respondent is prohibiting him to operate that locker w.e.f. 29.10.2010. Thus, respondent has committed deficiency in providing banking service. Accordingly, consumer complaint was filed before District Forum. read more +

Jamanlal Goenka College vs. Dr. Rahul Paras Maru dated 2012-04-23
Respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as ‘ Act’) against petitioners (O.Ps.) before District Forum, claiming return of extra amount of Rs. 3,37,500/-, charged from him by respondents for the payment seat for the course of BDS in petitioners’ college. read more +

Lokesh Parashar vs. M/s Idea Cellular Ltd. dated 2012-04-20
Briefly put, the petitioner obtained a mobile connection of the respondent No.1 Company bearing No.9911950795 through respondent No.2. According to the petitioner, at the time of obtaining the connection, he was assured that the validity of the mobile was upto February 2007. Later on, he got it extended upto July 2007 after making some payments. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents did not provide the cellular phone services to him and hence he filed a complaint before the District Forum, Faridabad alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents who were made OPs 1 & 2 respectively read more +

Jagdish C Dighe vs. The Ajara Urbanco-op Bank Ltd. dated 2012-04-17
These are a set of three revision petitions filed by three individuals against the Ajara Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd, Thane, Maharashtra. The matter emanates from three separate but identical complaints before the District Consumer Forum Thane. In all three cases, the complaints were allowed and therefore, the OP/Bank went in appeal before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The latter has disposed of the three appeals through a common order of 31.3.2011. read more +

M/S ICICI BANK LTD. vs. SHRI SONNEGOWDA dated 2012-04-16
. Brief facts are that respondent no.1/complainant was given a cheque for Rs.2 lakhs by Shri R.Siva Sankar - respondent no.3, herein. Respondent no.1, presented the said cheque to his banker - respondent no.2/opposite party no.1 for collection. Respondent no.2 sent the cheque for collection to petitioner’s bank/opposite party no.2 on 9.8.2010. The said cheque was not encashed due to “insufficient fund” in the account of respondent no.3. Accordingly, petitioner sent the cheque to respondent no.3. It is alleged by respondent no.1 that, petitioner ought to have sent the cheque and the endorsement to respondent no.2 and respondent no.2 ought to have handed over the cheque and endorsement to respondent no.1. Thus, respondent no.1 on the basis of cheque and bank’s endorsement as “insufficient fund”, had to file a private complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. before Magistrate’s Court for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, against respondent no.3. But due to the negligence on the part of petitioner and respondent no.2, respondent no.1 could not get the said cheque and endorsement of the Bank and as such respondent no.1 was not able to prosecute respondent no.3 u/s 138 of the Act due to delay. The cheque amount is Rs.2,00,000/-. read more +

Narendra K. Sodhi vs. Nandini N. Jadhav dated 2012-04-16
. Respondents/complainants have filed twenty complaints against the petitioner, who is builder, on the ground that respondents are in possession of their various respective flats after having paid the consideration amount to the petitioner as per agreements made between the parties. However, petitioner did not issue a permanent possession letter to occupation certificate to the flat purchasers. Petitioner after having received the consideration amount has failed to comply with the conditions mentioned in the Registered Agreement in its clause of amenities read more +

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s. Shripant Motors, dated 2012-04-16
Complainant/Respondent (hereinafter to be referred to as “Respondent No.1”) had placed an order with Hindustan Motors Ltd., Respondent No.3 herein for supply of one Ambassador Car costing about 3,60,688/- to its customer, namely Corporation Bank Belgaum. Pursuant to the said order, Respondent No.3 dispatched the Ambassador Car through a truck belonging to Jamuna Transport Corporation Ltd., Respondent No.2 herein. The said truck met with an accident while on its way to Belgaum. In the said accident, Ambassador Car carried in the truck was badly damaged. Since the Respondent No.1 had obtained a “Marine Cargo Open Policy” from the Petitioner Insurance Company it lodged a claim for payment of compensation of Rs.3,60,688/-. Petitioner, on being intimated, appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss. Surveyor in his report stated that the car could be repaired and assessed the loss at Rs.1,48,739/-. Respondent No.1 did not accept the value assessed and claimed the compensation to the extent of entire cost of the car. Petitioner thereafter repudiated the claim. Challenging the rejection of the claim, Respondent No.1 filed the complaint before the District Forum. read more +

 

M/s Aerolux India Pvt. Ltd. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. dated 2012-04-13
M/s Aerolux India Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged primarily in the business of ‘window dressing’ including the manufacturing of ‘venetian blinds’, have filed this consumer complaint under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., seeking a direction from this Commission to direct them to pay a sum of Rs.29,51,105/- with pendent lite interest @ 24% per annum on the said sum of Rs.29,51,105 from the date of signing/verification or from the date of filing of the present complaint till the realization thereof. read more +

Sr. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES vs. MANJIT KAUR SODHI dated 2012-04-13
Brief facts are that respondent/complainant booked a parcel containing wedding material at Jayanagar East Post Office, Bangalore. The said parcel did not reach its destination i.e. Jalandhar. Respondent complained to Jayanagar East Post Office and approached them many times. Petitioners/O.Ps informed her that parcel was misplaced, for which they offered her refund of Rs.240/-, being double the amount of the freight charges. However, respondent declined to accept the same as the parcel was worth Rs. 14,727/-. Hence, respondent filed complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs. 14,727/-. read more +

Air India vs. Dr. Mary Ramasamy dated 2012-04-12
Aggrieved by the impugned common order dated 14.09.2011 passed by Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (for short ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal Nos. 638 of 2011, 316 of 2009 and 132 of 2009, Air India (O.P. No. 3 in the original complaint) has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘The Act’). The appeals before the State Commission were filed by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 against the order dated 13.01.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mylapore, Chennai -4 in consumer complaint No. 723 of 2004. By the said order, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainants/Dr. Mary Ramasamy for herself and as mother and natural guardian of her two daughters, Ms. Niranjana Ramasamy and Ms. Krupa Ruth Ramasamy against the Managing Director-Travelon World Wide Pvt. Ltd. (O.P. No.1), Managing Director-Quantas (O.P. No.2) and Managing Director-Indian Airlines (O.P. No.3) alleging deficiency in service on their part, and directed the O.P. No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the litigation to each of the three complainants with the stipulation that the awarded amount shall be paid within six weeks from the date of the receipt of the order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till the date of payment. read more +

Union of India vs. Smt. N. Nethravathi dated 2012-04-12
Respondent (complainant before the District Forum) had filed complaint against the present petitioners (opposite parties before the District Forum) stating that she has invested Rs.30,000/- in Indra Vikas Patra. However, the original certificates were lost and facts about the loss was reported to the Police Station. After maturity, when respondent made a claim for payment of the money, the same was rejected. read more +

M. Satya Prabhakara Rao vs. A.P.State Road Transportation Corporation dated 2012-04-12
This revision petition is filed by the Complainant in consumer complaint No.698 of 2010 decided by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-1, Hyderabad on 21.1.2011. The case of the Complainant before the District Forum was that on 28.5.2010 he had purchased a bus ticket to travel to Kothagudam on the next date i.e. 29.5.2010. On the day of journey, he waited for over two hours at L.B. Nagar bus station but found no bus service. At about 11:45 in the night he came to know through some other commuters that the concerned bus service has been cancelled. read more +

M/S ARJUN MOTORS PVT.LTD. vs. SHRI JAGBIR SHARMA dated 2012-04-11
In this revision petition filed by the petitioner , there is challenge to order dated 28.5.2009, passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short ‘State Commission’). Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.1/complainant purchased a mini four wheeler No.HR-38K-5372 from respondent no.2/opposite party no.1 on 18.8.2004. Respondent no.2 is the authorized dealer of petitioner/opposite party no.2 who is manufacturer company of the said four wheeler. Respondent no.2 has given the warranty/guarantee for six months from the date of sale of the vehicle or 8,000 kilometer whichever is earlier. The vehicle was duly got insured. It is further stated that respondent no.1 has purchased the said vehicle from respondent no.2 from Balladgarh but they have intentionally issued the receipt of their head office at Gurgaon with malafide intention and further service book has not been supplied to the respondent no.1, even on demand. read more +

M/S ARJUN MOTORS PVT.LTD. vs. SHRI JAGBIR SHARMA dated 2012-04-11
Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.1/complainant purchased a mini four wheeler No.HR-38K-5372 from respondent no.2/opposite party no.1 on 18.8.2004. Respondent no.2 is the authorized dealer of petitioner/opposite party no.2 who is manufacturer company of the said four wheeler. Respondent no.2 has given the warranty/guarantee for six months from the date of sale of the vehicle or 8,000 kilometer whichever is earlier. The vehicle was duly got insured. It is further stated that respondent no.1 has purchased the said vehicle from respondent no.2 from Balladgarh but they have intentionally issued the receipt of their head office at Gurgaon with malafide intention and further service book has not been supplied to the respondent no.1, even on demand. read more +

Rajasthan Housing Board vs. Smt. Vimlesh Chaudharry dated 2012-04-11
Complainant/Respondent (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Respondent’) applied for allotment of HIG House to the Petitioners under the “Open Counter Scheme” and was allotted House No.2/5 in Kudi Bhagatsani Housing Board Scheme. Petitioners issued allotment letter. Total costs of the house was fixed at Rs.9,31,834/-. Respondent deposited the aforesaid amount on 31.1.2005. Petitioners by letter dated 11.2.05 informed the Respondent that because of the Writ Petition filed by Smt. Kanta Vyas it was not possible to hand over the possession of the allotted house to her. Petitioners gave an option to the Respondent to take two MIG houses instead of the HIG House allotted to her. Respondent accepted the offer. In the District Allotment Committee (DAC) meeting, a proposal was passed to allot only one MIG house [No.1-B-14] to the Respondent for Rs.4,42,500/-. By its letter dated 5.10.05 the Petitioners asked the Respondent to complete the legal formalities. Respondent submitted the relevant papers on 10.10.05 after completing all the formalities. On 10.10.05, possession letter was issued and the Respondent was handed over the possession of the unit allotted to him. Petitioners after deducting the sum of Rs.4,42,500/- towards the cost of the MIG house out of sum of Rs.9,31,834/- deposited by the Respondent for allotment of HIG house, refunded the balance amount of Rs.4,92,199/- to her read more +

Chandigarh Housing Board vs. Manmohan Singh, dated 2012-04-11
Complainant/Respondent was allotted HIG (Upper) flat in Sector 38 (West) bearing No.5794-A by the Petitioner. After paying the full consideration amount as determined by the Petitioner, Respondent applied for issuance of “No Objection Certificate” for getting the flat converted into free hold instead of lease hold. For this purpose, he moved an application on 16.3.01 along with affidavit and documents. In spite of his best efforts and repeated reminders, “No Objection Certificate” was not issued and he had to pay ground rent/lease money to the tune of Rs.7,224/-. read more +

Rakesh Goyal vs. . Delhi Development Authority dated 2012-04-10
In view of these facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to accept the version of the complainant that he vide his letter dated 15.05.1986 provided the details of his bank account to the OPs. However, the OPs slept over the matter and failed to do the needful. Consequently the complainant is entitled to interest by way of compensation on the refundable amount of US$ 3,750. Hence the OPs are guilty of deficiency in service. We direct the OP 1 to pay to the complainant interest by way of compensation @ 10% per annum on the refundable amount in India rupees equivalent to 3,750 US$ as on 01.06.1986 for the period 01.06.1986 (complainant supplied the details on 15.05.196) to 22.01.2004 when the cheque for Rs.40,475/- was given to the complainant. The amount of Rs.40,475/- already paid shall be adjusted. This amount of interest upto 22.01.2004 shall carry further interest @ 10% per annum upto date of payment. The OP 1 shall also pay Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation. The OP 1 is directed to comply with the order within one month of its receipt”. read more +

 

Tushar Dhananjay Mandlekar vs. Abhay Kumar Singh C.E.O., SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd dated 2012-04-10
He alleged that after he opened a savings bank account with the State Bank of India (SBI), Ambajhari Branch in January 2004, he received an offer in July 2004 for an international credit card from the SBI Card Payments and Services Pvt. Ltd. (OP 1 before the District Forum), which he availed of. However, till 30.11.2005 he did not use the credit card read more +

M/s. Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd., vs. M/s. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance dated 2012-04-04
M/s. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd./Opposite Party No.1 in the above captioned complaint has filed this application under Section 13, 22, and 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ‘Act’) praying for the dismissal of the complaint on the strength of certain preliminary objections.read more +

M/s. Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd., vs. M/s. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance dated 2012-04-04
M/s. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd./Opposite Party No.1 in the above captioned complaint has filed this application under Section 13, 22, and 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ‘Act’) praying for the dismissal of the complaint on the strength of certain preliminary objections.read more +

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Additional Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Co. Ltd. dated 2012-04-04
The case of the Complainant before the District Forum was that the claim form under the policy was submitted by the concerned Executive Engineer of the Board along with copies of the FIR lodged with the policy, post-mortem report, death certificate and the service certificate of the deceased employee. OP/Oriental Insurance Company repudiated the claim on 1.3.2007. In the written response of OP/Oriental Insurance Company, it was explained that under the terms of the policy, notice of death of the employee was required to be given within one calendar month of the death. As the claim was repudiated on account of delay in reporting the death of the employee, it was argued before the District Forum that the claim was required to made within a period 14 days and was rejected for non-compliance of this condition. The District Forum allowed the claim with compensation of Rs.5,000/-. read more +

M/s. Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd., vs. M/s. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., dated 2012-04-04
. It is averred in the application that the present complaint has been filed far beyond the stipulated limitation period of two years from the date of the accrual of the alleged cause of action as provided under Section 24-A of the Act. It is stated that the alleged damage to the Carbamate Condenser which has been made the basis of the insurance claim in the present complaint had occurred not later than the year 2005 or in any case as per the complainant’s own showing the cause of action arose on 26th March, 2007 when it discovered the damage to the Carbamate Condenser and therefore looked from any angle, the complaint is patently barred by limitation. Without prejudice to the above submission, it is also stated that the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, because it is mammoth corporate entity, its annual turnover running into billions of rupees and the present complaint has been filed before this Commission with a view to avoid payment of substantial court fee on the claim amount of Rs. 9,11,45,370/- and Rs. 3,38,01,198/- towards the interest and therefore, liable to be dismissed. read more +

Tata Motors Limited vs. Sunil Kumar dated 2012-04-04
. Tata Motors Limited, the manufacturer of the truck purchased by respondent no.1/complainant have filed this revision petition to assail the order dated 30th of September, 2010 of H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (State Commission for short). The State Commission while accepting the appeal of the respondent no.1/complainant has set aside the order of dismissal of the complaint passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solan, H.P. (District Forum for short) and has held that it was a case of manufacturing defect and, therefore, ordered them along with respondent no.2/dealer to replace the vehicle with a new one of similar description, failing which to refund a sum of Rs.6,77,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 26th of October, 2005 till the date of payment. read more +

M/s Daddys Developers & Builders vs. Sri S. Kannan dated 2012-04-04
Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 19.09.2011 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (‘State Commission’ for short). By its order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 03.08.2011 passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Seshadripuram, Bangalore (‘District Forum’ for short) by which the District Forum had accepted the complaint of the respondent in terms of the following order read more +

Regional Manager (C-2) vs. Momna Gauri dated 2012-04-04
The respondent was the complainant and petitioners were the opposite parties (OP) 2 & 3 before the District Forum. The complainant alleged that she bought a three wheeler vehicle manufactured by Scooter India Ltd., from Nawal Auto Sales, Morena, authorised dealer of 2 & 3 (and OP 1). This vehicle she bought with a loan, for earning her livelihood through self-employment. Though she paid Rs.1,95,000/- for the vehicle to OP 1, the actual price of the vehicle was Rs.1,84,500/-. Within few days of its purchase, the chassis of the vehicle was found to be damaged. Despite her requests to replace the vehicle forthwith, the OPs declined and OP 1 merely welded the chassis and returned the vehicle. Thus, alleging manufacturing defect in the vehicle, the complainant prayed for replacement of the aforesaid vehicle and compensation (unspecified amount) for physical, mental and financial loss suffered by her on this account. read more +

The Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Govt. of India vs. M/s. Vinod & Company dated 2012-04-04
Complainant/Respondent (hereinafter to be referred as “Respondent”) being a registered Exporter was entitled to REP licences against the exports made by it under the scheme prepared by the Petitioners for the relevant period 1988-93. Respondent applied for REP licences against the export of Rs.6,16,116/- during the above period for which they were entitled to a premium of 20% of the amount of exports under the scheme. As scheme for issue of REP licences was dis-continued, the premium of Rs.1,23,223/- was not paid. Respondent was informed by the Petitioners that the application filed by it was under consideration and action will follow in due course. Subsequently, Respondent received intimation that the Additional Chief Controller of Imports and Exports had passed an order on 3.09.91 keeping the grant of premium to the Respondent in abeyance from 3.2.88 to 31.3.92 which period was further extended to 31.3.93. Later on, debarment circular dated 9.9.91 was issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi. read more +

Gautam Barua vs. M/s Abhi Technologies dated 2012-04-04
The OP did not turn up despite registered notice and was proceeded against ex-parte. The complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record. The computer was upgraded on 19.09.2002 and it was under warranty period upto 18.09.2003. The defect having been arisen within the warranty period the OP is liable to rectify the defect which the OP has not done and has not even returned the computer to the complainant after the repairs. Hence, the OP is guilty of deficiency in service. We direct the OP to rectify the computer in all respects and deliver the same to the complainant at his place within one month of the receipt of the order. The OP is further directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for the inconvenience and harassment suffered by him. The OP shall also pay Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation. The OP is directed to comply with order within one month of its receipt failing which the amount of compensation and cost shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order”. read more +

 

M/s. Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd. vs. Mr. Varghese Skaria dated 2012-04-02
The complainants have alleged that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It is averred that due to the instigation and compulsion of the opposite parties, the complainants had changed their share dealings with M/s. Geogit Financial Service and had invested the amount and had started the dealings with the present opposite parties. It can be seen that the complainants had availed the services of the opposite parties for buying and selling of shares and it is also averred that the opposite parties had sold the shares belonging to the complainants without their knowledge and consent thereby putting the complainants to huge loss. It is also found that though notices were served on the opposite parties, the opposite parties did not care to file version and contest the matter which would give an impression that the complainants’ case regarding the availing of service can be accepted. read more +

Devinder Kumar vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. dated 2012-04-02
The subject matter of this revision petition emanate from the theft of a dumper-truck belonging to the revision petitioner/ Complainant. The vehicle was insured with the respondent/OP at the time of the loss. read more +

Shri Vinod Kumar Tanwar vs. M/s. Standard Chartered Bank dated 2012-04-02
Complainant/Petitioner (since deceased represented through LRs) has filed this Revision Petition against the judgment and order dated 12.10.07 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in appeal No. 529/07 whereby the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant/Petitioner for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the District Forum. read more +

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Satvinder Kaur & Anr. dated 2012-04-02
Complainant/Respondent raised a loan under the Prime Minister Rozgar Yojna from the State Bank of Patiala, Respondent No.2 herein and started the Embroidery work on readymade garments in her premises. Respondent obtained a ‘Shopkeepers Insurance Policy’ from the Petitioner Insurance Company for a sum of Rs.1 lakh against the risk of fire, theft etc. in the year 1998. On 13.12.98, a fire broke out in the premises and the entire stock of readymade garments of the value of Rs.1,26,765/-, furniture worth Rs.26,208 and other stock worth Rs.1,17,207 was burnt and destroyed. Police report was lodged. On being intimated, Petitioner appointed the Surveyor to assess the loss. Claim lodged by the Respondent was not settled on the ground that the Respondent did not co-operate with the Petitioner in furnishing the requisite documents in spite of several letters written to her to the that effect. Being aggrieved, Respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum in the year 2003. read more +

 

 
© Consumer Redressal 2014. All rights reserved