Submit your Complaint

Submit Complaint

Helpline Number

  +91 70657 60003

Email Address

National Commission Judgments (January 2012)


Shivdarshan Builders & Developers vs. Sanjiv S/o Somaji Barai dated 2012-01-25
Brief facts of this case are that respondents (who were complainants in the District Forum) filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as ‘the Act’) against petitioners/opposite parties. It has been alleged by respondent no.1 that he is a teacher and respondent no.2 is his wife. Petitioners are doing the business of constructing Apartments. They had decided to construct Apartments and shops on Plot No.11 and 12 of Budhulkheda Street Scheme of Nagpur Improvement Trust at Mouza Dighori Nagpur and the said scheme was named as “Shivdarshan Apartments”. Respondent no.1 decided to purchase Apartment No.T-3 and Respondent no.2 has decided to purchase Shop No.F-2 in the said scheme. The price thereof was Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- respectively and the agreement to execute Sale Deed of Shop and Apartment was done. It is further stated by respondents that from time to time they had paid total Rs.11,000,00/- to the petitioners but they have not executed sale deeds. read more +

The undisputed facts which we may notice first are that two consignments of readymade ladies and gents garments were to be supplied by the complainant to M/s. Wings Manufacturing Corporation, New York against an export order. The consignments duly packed in 38 packages and 37 packages respectively were entrusted to the opposite party No. 1 vide Bills of Lading both dated 20.01.1995 for carriage and delivery at New York Port. The name of the consignee mentioned in the Bill of Lading was National West Minister Bank and the notified party as the Wings Manufacturing Corporation. The foreign buyer to whom the goods were to be supplied had specifically asked the complainant to ensure that the goods should be delivered not later than early third week of February, 1995. However, before the consignments could be put on board, vide a fax message dated 23.01.1995, the opposite party informed the complainant that due to unfavourable weather conditions, the Vessel ‘Kota Mawar’ on which the consignments were to be loaded could not be berthed at the port in time and therefore it was expected that the consignments would be loaded on another vessel ‘Siraj’ which was expected to be berthed on 25.01.1995 and sail on 28/29.1.1995 and was expected to reach the port of destination NYK Port on 25.02.1995. It is not in dispute that the consignments in fact were carried and reached the port of destination e.g. New York Port and discharged on 25.02.1995. However, the foreign buyer i.e. Wings Manufacturing Corporation refused to take delivery of the consignments on the ground that the consignments did not reach within the stipulated period i.e. early third week of February, 1995 and therefore, he could not sell them resulting into loss of credibility of his customers. The complainant had forwarded the relevant documents i.e. Bills of Lading, Invoices etc., to the foreign Bank through its Banker-Oriental Bank of Commerce for collection of the payment against a L.C. already established with the said foreign Bank. In June, 1995, the foreign bank returned the documents without payment on the ground that the consignee refused to make the payment and retire the documents. Faced with this situation, the complainant in his bid to salvage the situation and minimize the loss found another buyer-Kotru Direct, who agreed to take delivery of the consignment, subject to certain conditions. Having received this commitment from the second buyer, the complainant approached the opposite party for effecting change in the name of the consignee from the above named foreign bank to ‘Kotru Direct’. It would appear that it was at this stage that the opposite party entertained the request of the complainant and requested its counterpart in New York to do the needful. While the said request for change of the name of the consignee was pending, the opposite party informed the complainant that one of the two consignments had in fact been delivered to the consignee on 21.3.1995 while the second consignment was still available. The complainant believing this representation informed the second buyer ‘Kotru Direct’ about this position who took a serious exception to this position and accused the complainant of so many un-business likely practices and wrong information and cancelled the supply order and threatened the complainant to recover certain damages from him. The complainant also took up the matter with the first buyer i.e. Wings Manufacturing Corporation demanding the payment of the consignment which was reportedly delivered to them on 21.3.1995. The said buyer not only denied having taken the delivery of the consignment on that date or on any other date but also slapped the complainant with a very nasty letter threatening the complainant to cancel all subsequent business dealings with the complainant. Subsequently, however, the opposite parties corrected their mistake and vide their last communication dated 12.1.1996 finally communicated to the complainant that both the consignments under two Bills of Lading had arrived New York on 25.2.1995 and they were sent to the Government’s Bonded Warehouse on 03.7.1995 and still the delivery was not taken off. Ocean freight is yet to be settled and the cargo was attracting demurrage/storage of an estimate of over US$ 5000. On receipt of this communication, the complainant issued a letter / notice dated 22.1.1996 claiming a penalty amount of US$ 6,703.00 equivalent to Rs. 2,09,602.81 or to furnish Bank Guarantee for payment of the said amount and also asked the opposite party as to how they proposed to compensate the complainant for the cost of the uncleared goods and loss incurred by the complainant. Having no response, the complainant has filed the present complaint. read more +

The above named complainant, a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of Poultries at Bhabandha. It had insured one Poultry Farm by taking a Fire Policy “C” bearing No. 1155060104549 in the sum of Rs. 77,62,000/- valid from4.7.1999 to 03.7.2000. Unfortunately, on the night intervening 17th & 18th October, 1999, a severe cyclone hit the entire south Orissa and completely devastated the unit of the complainant, intimation of which was given to the Opposite Party-Insurance Company. M/s. Mehta & Padamsey Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., were appointed, who after spot verification on 28.10.1999 and on some other dates vide their final survey report dated 08.3.2000 assessed the total net loss at Rs. 65,76,317/- . The opposite party-Insurance Company did not release the claim amount in terms of the survey report and sat over the matter. The complainant made representations for early settlement of claim. To the utter shock the complainant was surprised to note that the complainant had offered to settle the claim of the complainant at Rs. 40,06,211/- as against the net loss assessed by the surveyor at Rs. 65,76,317/-. The amount of Rs. 40,06,211/- was received by the complainant through its Banker under duress and protest as according to the complainant the insurance company had arbitrarily withheld the balance of the claim hence, the complaint seeking a sum of Rs. 25,70,106/- being the balance claim amount besides a sum of Rs. 10.00 lacs as compensation towards loss of business caused to the complainant and on account of mental agony and harassment has filed this complaint. read more +

Tribeni Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. vs. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. dated 2012-01-19
As seen from the record, the facts of the case in brief are that the complainant was running a cold storage for which he had taken four different insurance policies. These policies covered the following risks:- a) Stock fire, with effect from 10.5.1990, risk covered Rs.23.22 lakhs. b) Building and machineries fire with effect from 18.4.1990 risk covered Rs.21 lakhs. c) Machinery break down with effect from 10.5.1990 risk covered Rs.10.89 lakhs. d) Deterioration of stock with effect from 10.5.1990 risk covered Rs.23.33 lakhs. read more +

Shri Aman Deep Sharma s/o Late Shri Salig Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited dated 2012-01-17
Brief facts of this case are that deceased-complainant (Sh. Salig Ram) filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as ‘Act’) against respondent/ opposite party. In the complaint, it was alleged that he is owner of L & T/JCB Machine and on 20.11.2004 at about 12.00 noon, the vehicle met with accident and fell down about 300 meters deep in Khad and was totally damaged. At the time of accident, driver Dharam Singh was having valid driving licence. The machine was insured with respondent for the sum of Rs. 10 lac. Respondent’s Surveyor submitted his report and assessed the total loss. Complainant applied to the respondent to compensate him for the loss by filing of relevant documents, but respondent has been delaying the matter without any reason. It is further alleged that despite repeated requests, verbal as well as written notice dated 06.03.2006, respondent is not paying the compensation. Finally, respondent refused to make the payment, vide letter dated 05.05.2006. read more +

Now coming to the merits of the case, brief facts are that appellant/complainant, a proprietor firm dealing in the jewellary, obtained a renewal of his earlier insurance policy issued by the respondent/opposite party – insurance company w.e.f. 27.1.2006 to 26.1.2007. The total sum assured under the policy was Rs.40 lakhs out of which under Section 2 (C) of the policy the gold in the custody of the Goldsmith/cutter etc. was insured for Rs.25 lakhs and it is with this clause we are concerned. read more +

M/s Mehta Build Con. Ltd. vs. Kanta Rani dated 2012-01-06
Briefly stated, the opposite parties vide receipts No.661 dated 28.1.2006 and 667 dated 28.1.2006 received Rs.25,000/- from each of the two complainants on account of pre-launch booking for their upcoming project, namely, Crescent Apartment in Kharar, District Mohali. When considerable period had passed but neither any project had been started nor any documents of title were being shown to the complainants, the two complainants filed a joint complaint before the District Forum praying for refund of their deposit and compensation. Reply was filed to the complaint by OP No.1/petitioner who pleaded that it had not received any amount from the complainants and had not issued any receipts in question on account of pre-launch booking as alleged in the complaint. It was further submitted that OP No.1 had no concern with the complainants with reference to the deal/contract, if any, executed between the complainants and OP No.2. Denying other material contentions raised in the complaint, it was pleaded by OP No.1 that there was no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. OP No.2 could not be served. read more +

The Kerala State Electricity Board, vs. Dominic Joseph & Ors dated 2012-01-05
According to the complainants they were having electricity connection in their house with consumer number 3770 of Electrical Major Section, Ponkunnam. The connection is a domestic connection. The complainants are doing business at Ernakulam and they used to reside in the said house occasionally. The Estate Supervisor, however, is residing in the house. The charges of electricity were being paid regularly. On 27.09.2001, KSEB officials visited the house. They prepared a Mahazar and obtained the signature of the complainant no. 2 and the Estate Supervisor, namely, K. J. Thomas. According to the complainants, the contents of the Mahazar were not disclosed to them. But later on the complainants came to know that the Mahazar was prepared with an allegation that the house was being used as a guest house. On 28.09.2001, the OPs changed the electric meter without complying formalities. On 4.10.2001, the OPs issued invoice dated 3.10.2001, demanding Rs.1,22,679/-.the complainants filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum with a request to direct the OPs not to disconnect the electricity supply to the complainant’s premises and to declare the bill for Rs.1,22,679/- as illegal and also for payment of compensation and cost read more +

National Securities Depository Ltd vs. Sh. Shivaraj R. Nelivigi & Ors dated 2012-01-05
. The complainant is an income tax assessee since 1959. He was issued with a PAN Card with No.ABWPN9154F. He stated that his grandfather’s name was Basalingappa but due to oversight his grandfather’s name was written as Neelappa in the PAN Card. The full name of his father which should have been Rachappa Basalingappa Nelivigi was wrongly written as Rachappa Neelappa Nelivigi. It needed correction or rectification in the PAN Card. Since OP-1 is the concerned authority to correct the PAN Card and OP-2/Respondent-2 is the authorized signatory or the agent of OP-1, on 9.9.2006 the complainant made an application to OP-1 through OP-2 seeking correction of his grandfather’s name in the PAN Card. To clarify his request in the application, the complainant forwarded the documents described in para 5 of his complaint under a letter dated 16.10.2006 but again a further clarification was sought by OP-2. The complainant forwarded the authenticated documents to OP-1 on 18.8.2007. He made the second application on 22.9.2007 accompanied with further documents but OP-1 did not carry out the request of the complainant. In spite of lapse of more than two years since the first application, the OP-1 did not provide the corrected PAN Card to the complainant. It is alleged that in the meantime the accounts of the complainant were frozen by the Stock Holding Corporation of India. The interest earned by him on the investment was blocked and he could not sell or purchase the shares and securities during the period. He also could not invest in mutual funds to save the income tax. He sent a legal notice on 13.12.2008 to call upon the OP-1 to rectify the PAN Card and to pay compensation but without any positive response. He also provided OP-1 with various court documents as well as a certificate of identity by Member of Parliament but OP-1 did not act upon. The complainant, therefore, knocked the doors of the consumer fora by filing a consumer complaint claiming compensation of Rs.2 lakhs towards damages for loss of opportunity in investing, Rs.4076/- being interest on the above compensation and Rs.134.34 being the fee paid for rectification of the PAN Card besides general damages and legal fees. read more +

A.Suresh Babu M/s. Cal-on Marketing Private Ltd vs. Gujavarthi Ramachandr Reddy The Managing Director M/s. Laxmi Srinivasa Rice Mills, dated 2012-01-04
The complainant installed a rice mill in the year 2001. Every year it had to purchase one lakh quintals of paddy and convert it into rice and sell the rice to the Food Corporation of India and in the open market. Attracted by the advertisement of the OP, the complainant placed an order on 17.8.2004 for supplying a weigh bridge of 5 tons capacity for Rs.4,10,000/- and paid 25% of the quoted price i.e., Rs.1,01,750/- on 17.8.2004. On 5.11.2004, OP delivered the weigh bridge and its engineer fixed the same on 23.11.2004 after which the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2 lakh. Installation of the weigh bridge was completed on 23.11.2004 and the invoice was handed over on the same day. Having found the weigh bridge to be defective, defects were brought to the notice of the OP, upon which the OP engineers visited twice and rectified the defects and fitted the weigh bridge with load cells. Balance amount of Rs.1 lakh including the fitting charges were paid thereafter. Contrary to the warranty given by the OP, the weigh bridge was not functioning properly and the plates were broken because of which the complainant suffered losses. 3. Aggrieved by the malfunctioning of the weigh bridge and also the attitude of the OP in attending to the defects, the complainant approached the District Forum by filing a consumer complaint seeking directions to the OP for replacement of weigh bridge of 50 HP and for paying Rs.20,000/- or in the alternative to refund the value of the weigh bridge of Rs.4,10,000/- with interest 24% per annum and Rs.20,000/- towards damages. read more +


Ankit Bhatnagar vs. Vijay Constructions & Ors dated 2012-01-04
Petitioners were the complainants before the District Forum. They alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, in that the respondents had failed to execute the agreement for sale even after the complainants had made full payment of the consideration for the flats and received the possession thereof from the respondents. The respondents/opposite parties (OPs) resisted the complaint mainly on the ground that the cost of construction had risen steeply leading to their demand for escalation charges at the rate of Rs.200/- per square foot and that each of the complainants had not paid Rs.2,40,000/- towards the original agreed sale price of the flat. read more +

M. L. Agrawal, son of Late Pyare Lal vs. Regional Manager and Administrator UTI Investment Services Ltd dated 2012-01-04
The petitioner was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nainital (in short, ‘the District Forum’). The allegation related to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/OP in that redemption proceeds of investments made in the Children Gift Growth Fund Scheme, 1986 (in short, ‘the CGGFS) of the Unit Trust of India (UTI) by the complainant and the members of his family for the benefit of the minors in four out of nine cases had not been remitted to the complainant. The complainant also challenged the legal validity of premature termination of the CGGFS more +

State Bank of India vs. Shri N. K. Sharma dated 2012-01-04
The respondent was the complainant before the District Forum. As an employee of the petitioner Bank at Chandigarh, he availed of housing loan of Rs. 5 lakh from the Bank’s Zonal Office at Panchkula. The equated monthly installment (EMI) for repayment of the loan was Rs.2780/-. The rate of interest was concessional at 5.10% per annum upto to the loan of Rs.1.10 lakh and 11.10% above the said amount. The loan had to be repaid in 20 years or 70 years of the employee’s age, whichever was earlier. The respondent opted to continue the facility of repaying the EMI till 70 years of his age. read more +

M/s U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors dated 2012-01-04
M/s U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited, who runs a cold storage at Semri, Jamalpur, Tehsil Ghosi, District Mau, U.P., has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on part of the National Insurance Company Limited, claiming a compensation of Rs.53,26,869.60 ps. read more +

National Insurance Company Limited vs. Hari Chand & Ors dated 2012-01-04
son of the complainant, who is respondent No. 1 herein, had purchased Maruti Car on 8.9.1999 after getting it financed by respondent No. 2 (who was opposite party No. 3 before the District Forum) under lease agreement dated 8.9.1999. The said vehicle was insured with the petitioner-company, who were opposite parties 1 and 2 before the District Forum for Rs.1,80,000/- under insurance cover note No. 657873 dated 8.9.1999. The aforesaid vehicle met with an accident on 12.9.1999 resulting in the death of the son of the complainant and extensive damage to the vehiclethe District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner-company to indemnify the complainant to the extent of Rs.70,000/- alongwith interest @9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the complaint till realization in addition to Rs.1500/- by way of litigation expenses. read more +

Indian Oil Corporation vs. Shri Pyare Lal & Ors dated 2012-01-04
are that complainant No. 2, Kundan Lal was a subscriber of LPG connection with opposite party No. 2 since 28.1.1994. Complainant No. 1, Pyare Lal is son of complainant No. 2, Kundan Lal. The complainants had booked gas cylinder with opposite party -3- No. 2 in October, 2005, which was supplied by them in the same month. It is alleged that on 24.10.2005 at about 12-12.30 p.m. when the seal of the gas cylinder was removed by complainant. No. 1, it started leaking out with great force and speed and as a result thereof, fire broke out in their house and complainant No. 1 received grievous burn injuries in this fire incident and upper portion of the building of the complainants got damaged extensively due to the blast during which the furniture and other article also got burnt in the fire. The incident of blast of fire was immediately reported to the police. It was alleged that there was negligence on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2, who were suppliers of LPG cylinder of opposite party No. 3, who is manufacturer of gas cylinder in bulk, because of which blast and the resultant fire had caused huge loss to the building and injuries to complainant No. 1. The complainant, therefore, lodged a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice wherein compensation amounting to Rs.6,50,000/- was claimed alongwith interest @18% per annum w.e.f. 25.10.2005 till the date of payment alongwith damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. read more +

Chabi Das vs. Ranjit Kr. Chowdhury & Ors dated 2012-01-04
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner/developer had entered into an agreement for sale of a flat to be constructed by him to the respondent no.1/complainant for a cost of Rs.3,60,000/-. He had already received a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- and on account of the non-payment of the balance amount of Rs.30,000/-, the petitioner not only revoked the sale agreement but also sold the said flat to a third party. Obviously, being aggrieved the respondent no.1/complainant approached the District Forum, who, as stated above, not only directed the petitioner to refund the amount already paid by the complainant with interest but also awarded a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injustice and deficiency perpetrated by the petitioner. Aggrieved with the said decision of the District Forum, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the State Commission, which too, as stated above, has been dismissed with a cost of Rs.1000/-. read more +

Jassi Hospital & Heart Care Centre vs. Jassi Hospital & Heart Care Centre & Ors dated 2012-01-04
Jassi Hospital & Heart Care Centre, College Road, Fazilka, who were the opposite party no.1 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur, have filed this revision petition seeking to challenge the order dated 6th of April, 2011 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh passed in First Appeal No. 1452 of 2005. The operative part of the said order reads as under :- “51. In view of the discussions held above, we reach the conclusion that there was no medical negligence committed by respondent No. 1 in treating the patient. It was the heart failure which led to the death of the patient. However, respondent No. 1 has committed unfair trade practice in employing the untrained and unqualified staff in his hospital. In these circumstances, the appellants are awarded compensation to the extent of Rs.50,000/- which will be payable by respondent No. 1 alone.” read more +

H. C. Saxena vs. New India Assurance Co dated 2012-01-03
The petitioner had insured his car Opel Corsa Royale 1.6 with the respondent/opposite party-insurance company for a sum of Rs.7,33,450/- vide insurance policy dated 20.09.2003. On 3.8.2004, heavy flood came in Ambala due to which the aforesaid car of the petitioner got drowned/submerged in water and hence badly damaged. Necessary information regarding the damage to the car was given by the petitioner to the respondent on 5.8.2004, upon which the respondent deputed a Surveyor, namely, Ravi Kumar Gupta, who assessed the damage to the car to the tune of Rs.42,276/-. However, according to the petitioner, he had spent a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on the repairs of his car, besides other expenses incurred on the cost of oil to the tune of Rs.7,000/-, loss of business for three months @25,000/- per month thereby amounting to Rs.75,000/-, compensation on account of mental agony and harassment at Rs.1,50,000/-, cost of towing of the car Rs.15,000/- and litigation expenses Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, the petitioner sought compensation from the respondent-company to this extent read more +

Prithviraj Naryanrao Chavan vs. The National Seeds Corporation Ltd., dated 2012-01-03
that the petitioners who filed the complaints before the District Forum, are agriculturists and their land is situated in village Nagamtha. It is the contention of the complainants that the representative of the respondent company at Shrirampur, approached them and suggested to participate in their seed production programme for JRO-524 variety Jute crop during kharif season. The respondent was to arrange at their expense all the operations such as land preparation, sowing, manuring, plant protection, harvesting etc. The complainants / petitioners were assured a minimum procurement price of Rs.1,000/- per quintal of seed produced. The average yield assured by the respondent company by using JRO-524 variety seed supplied by them was 8 to 10 quintal per acre. The petitioners participated in the seed production programme for a total area of 25 acre and accordingly, the name of the petitioner no. 1 was registered under the programme with the respondent company. The petitioners purchased 21 kg. of the said variety of seeds @Rs.20 per kg. from the respondent company. They also paid registration fee and the inspection fee as well as testing charges. Sowing of the seed, in question, was completed by the petitioners on 5.08.93 under the instructions and supervision of the respondents. In spite of the rainfall being good, it is the contention of the petitioners that the germination of the seeds in the field was not uniform. In fact, germination was very poor. He brought this to the notice of the respondents upon which their representative visited the land, but no action was taken. According to the petitioners, they received a copy of letter dated 9.9.1993 addressed by the respondents to the District Seed Certification Officer, Aurangabad informing that the area under jute cultivation by the petitioner is withdrawn from certification due to failure of the crop. The petitioners were required to replough the entire 25 acre to make it ready for the next Rabi season and in the circumstances, they suffered heavy loss and damages for which they approached the District Forum by filing a consumer complaint demanding compensation of Rs.4,47,544/-. read more +


Dr. Laxman Dass Bansal vs. Executive Enginee, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran dated 2012-01-03
the vigilance staff of the respondents inspected the electricity connection installed in the hospital premises of the petitioner/complainant and during the checking, it was noticed that in the left side body of the meter at the level of the disk, there was a hole through which by inserting any artificial object the disk of the meter could be stopped in view of the sale circular no.4/2001, sale circular no.61/2000 and sale circular no.38/1998. It was, therefore, recorded as a case of abstracting energy dishonestly and hence the account of the complainant required to be overhauled read more +

The Managing Director HOUSEFED vs. Rajeev Kumar dated 2012-01-03
The complainant who is respondent no.1 herein, applied to the petitioners for allotment of a category I flat on 8.3.2009 in the scheme floated by the petitioner at Banur vide application form no.960. The total cost of the flat was shown to be Rs.20.18 lakhs. Along with the application he deposited Rs.1,01,000/- by way of demand draft being 5% of the initial deposit of the cost of the category I flat. The draw was held on 9.6.2009 but the complainant was not successful. Upon enquiry, he came to know that his name was placed at Sl. No.16 of the waiting lost. As per condition no.2(f), the waiting list was valid for one year from the date of closing of the scheme and the refund of the initial deposit was to be made within 90 days,the District Forum vide its order dated 5.4.2010, accepted the complaint and directed OPs 1 & 2/petitioners to refund the total amount of Rs.1,01,000/- (less already paid) along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till the entire amount was paid by the OPs to the complainant along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost read more +

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. Sh. Bhagwana Ram dated 2012-01-03
the complainants are that ancestors of the complainants who are respondents herein had taken an agriculture connection from the petitioner-company and the wires of the said connection being loose, the complainants complained about the same to the petitioners but they did not take steps to rectify or remedy the situation. According to the complainants, on 22.04.2009 the wires of LT line broke and fell on the thatched roof of the jhuggi of the complainants due to which all the articles and clothes kept inside got burnt and goats died. The complainants thereby suffered a loss of Rs.72000/- which the petitioners declined to pay. A consumer complaint, therefore, was filed by the complainants/respondents with the District Forum which was accepted by the District Forum. read more +

Bharat Seed Company vs. Charanjit Singh dated 2012-01-02
This revision petition has been filed against the order of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in F.A. 2499 of 2003. The State Commission has confirmed the order of the District Consumer Forum, Sirsa, which had held the OPs responsible for deficiency in service for having supplied sub-standard Lobia seeds to the Complainant read more +

© Consumer Redressal 2018. All rights reserved