Submit your Complaint
mail@consumerredressal.com
 

Submit Complaint

Helpline Number

  +91 70657 60003

Email Address

  mail@consumerredressal.com

Consumer Judgments (20 Sep to 27 Sep, 2014)

Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical vs. Smt. Premeela, dated 2014-09-25
Late Smt. Chandramathi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘patient’) was taken to Tely Medical Centre Ltd., Thalassery, where on investigation, she was diagnosed to be suffering from Rheumatic Heart Disease and Mitral Stenosis. Since her treatment in the hospital did not lead to improvement in her condition, she was taken to OP-5 Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, for her treatment on 30.5.1997. She was advised to undergo a procedure called Balloon Mitral Valvulu Plasty (BMV) to get rid of her ailment. After advising medicines to her, she was asked to report at the hospital on 09.7.1997. Later, the procedure was postponed to 16.7.1997 at 8.00 a.m. and a sum of Rs.70,000/- as advance was taken for her treatment. Though, the procedure was scheduled to be conducted on 28.7.1997 by a team of doctors, headed by Dr. Francis, the patient was informed that the procedure would be performed during a workshop on BMV, which was being held in the hospital on that day. read more +
 

Morteza Yousefi vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. dated 2014-09-25
The brief factual matrix of the case comprised the claim for flood/rain damage caused to the house in July, 2010. The relevant policy under which the house was insured had commenced on 13.8.2009. The assessor appointed by the Complainant estimated the loss at Rs.1 lakh. On the other hand, the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Co. assessed it at Rs.13,290/-. The Insurance Co. sent a cheque for this amount. The complainant claimed to have accepted it ‘under protest’. read more +
 

Chairman, Sahara India vs. Chetan Prakash dated 2014-09-25
Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent is legal representative of late Smt. Amar Bai Meena, who obtained bond of Rs.3,000/- for the period of ten years in her life time on 22.10.1998 from OP/petitioner. As per bond, if applicant dies between the age of 16-60 years or after 12 months of purchase of bonds, OP shall give equal amount of bond per month for the period of 10 years. Amar Bai Meena died on 13.11.2003. Complainant submitted claim to OP which was repudiated by OP. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that as bond holder died after attaining age of 60 years, no amount was payable and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Complainant filed appeal and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.3,000/- per month from 13.11.2003 to next 10 years with Rs.1,000/- as cost against which, this revision petition has been filed. read more +
 

Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. Lal Singh dated 2014-09-25
Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent had electricity connection from OP/petitioner from 16.4.2004. Complainant complained about fast running of meter and OP changed the meter and issued bill for December, 2004 for Rs.4027/- showing previous outstanding, which was wrong. Complainant did not deposit amount and OP disconnected supply on 24.3.2005. Complainant on 15.9.2008 applied for new electricity connection and he was issued bill for previous outstanding of Rs.7387.79 inclusive of Rs.1915.35 as interest which demand was totally illegal. OP refused to release connection without depositing demanded amount. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that for grant of new connection demand towards previous outstanding was to be deposited and OP was well within its rights to call for outstanding amount and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and quashed demand of Rs.7387.79. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.read more +
 

Manager, Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. vs. Motilal Swain dated 2014-09-24
Brief facts of the case are that Complainant-Respondent filed complaint before District Forum and Learned District Forum vide interim order dated 7.8.2012 directed Opposite Party-Petitioner to release vehicle No. OR-09-N-4079 on payment of outstanding dues of Rs. 31,838/-. Opposite Party filed revision before State Commission and Learned State Commission vide order dated 26.9.2012 while deciding Revision Petition finally directed Complainant to deposit additional Rs. 23,162/- for release of the vehicle and it was further observed that Complainant shall make payment of monthly EMIs on the stipulated dates and shall also make good outstanding EMI dues within a period of six months from October, 2012. Later on, vide order dated 16.10.2012, Learned State Commission, on application of Complainant , modified order dated 26.9.2012 and directed Opposite Party to receive Rs. 50,000/- including Rs. 23,162. Opposite Party filed another Misc. Application to modify order dated 16.10.2012 which was dismissed by Learned State Commission vide order dated 30.10.2012. read more +
 

Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Raj Bala dated 2014-09-24
Brief facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent booked luxury flat No.903 with OP/petitioner and made time to time payment as mentioned in the complaint. At the time of execution of agreement, OP intimated to the complainant that flat No. 903 stands allotted to someone else and was asked to opt for some ordinary flat for which the complainant refused. Then, OP returned two cheques for Rs.1,64,145/- and Rs.1,91,250/- given by complainant. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that as OP was not in a position to give possession of flat No. 903, they offered similar flat at same rate at better location and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to allot flat No. L-1301 after accepting balance amount without interest. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. read more +
 

Brig (Retd.) J.N. Deviah vs. M/s. Shantiniketan Housing Foundation dated 2014-09-23
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 26.10.2009 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1476/2009 – M/s. Shanthiniketan Housing Foundation Vs. Brig. (Retd.) J.N. Deviah & Anr. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum in Execution Petition was set aside. read more +
 

DR. PANDU S. vs. M. SUBBA RAO(Deceased) dated 2014-09-23
Complainant – M. Subba Rao filed complaint before District Forum alleging medical negligence on the part of the opposite party/petitioner while conducting operation of his left eye. Opposite party resisted complaint. Learned District Forum vide order dated 09-08-2005 allowed complaint and directed opposite party no. 1/petitioner to pay Rs. 2 lakhs and opposite party no. 2 to pay Rs.50,000/- with interest. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order, against which this revision petition has been filed. read more +
 

United Bank of India vs. M/s. Janata Paradise Hotel & Restaurant dated 2014-09-22
Brief facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent is a registered partnership firm took term loan from OP/petitioner in 1986, which was cleared through a compromise in 1995. It was further submitted that OP debited complainant’s term account for Rs.98,894.05 on account of DICGCL guarantee fee which was to be refunded to the complainant as OP had withdrawn from the scheme. In this respect OP also confirmed by letter dated 23.9.1993 addressed to their higher authorities. Inspite of repeated letters written to the OP for refund of aforesaid amount, amount was not refunded. OP by letter dated 26.5.2008 in reference to complainant’s letters dated 18.11.2007 and 18.1.2008 informed that matter has been referred to higher authorities, but so far amount has not been refunded. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that claim is time barred and complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer. It was further submitted that OP rightly debited aforesaid amount and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to refund aforesaid amount with compensation of Rs.10,000/-. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. read more +
 

Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. Mohit Computer & Electronics dated 2014-09-22
Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent filed complaint before District Forum and submitted that at the instance of Lineman one Vigilance Check Report was prepared against the complainant and leveled allegations that electricity supply was found continued in his shop and raised demand, complainant prayed for quashing demand and releasing connection. OP resisted complaint and submitted that this was a case of electricity theft and District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed to give connection against the amount already deposited and further observed that OP is given right to initiate proceedings under Section 126 (3) for recovery. OP filed appeal before State Commission which was dismissed. On revision filed by OP, matter was remanded back to learned State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order again dismissed appeal against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay of 23 days. read more +
 
Chairman Shivdan Singh vs. Vivek Kumar dated 2014-09-22
Complainant- Respondent filed complaint before District Forum and Learned District Forum allowed complaint and directed Opposite Party- Petitioner to pay to the Complainant- Respondent, Rs. 60,000/- with interest and further awarded Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost. Appeal filed by the Opposite Party was dismissed by Learned State Commission by impugned order against which this Revision Petition has been filed. read more +
 

Sardar Harinderpal Singh vs. Sujata Meshram dated 2014-09-22
Brief facts of the case are that complainants/respondents entered into tripartite agreement with OP No. 2 & 3/petitioners for construction of duplex house for Rs.5,60,000/-. It was further submitted that complainant deposited Rs.4,67,000/- with OPs. OP also executed sale deed in favour of complainant on 6.11.2003 of the land on which house was to be constructed. It was further submitted that in sale deed Rs.2,47,000/- has been shown as sale consideration out of which, cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- was given and OP told that this cheque will be returned back on payment of Rs.5,60,000/- as cost of construction. It was further submitted that inspite of repeated requests, cheque was not returned and construction has also not been completed. It was further submitted that complainant took loan of Rs.4,00,000/- for payment. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OPs resisted complaint and submitted that complainant firstly purchased plot and then entered into agreement for construction of house for a sum of Rs.5,60,000/-. It was denied that cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- was to be returned back. It was further submitted that if complainant is ready to pay Rs.2,47,000/- plus Rs.5,60,000/-, OP is ready to complete construction work and deliver possession and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to transfer possession of duplex house on receipt of Rs. 97,000/- from the complainant and further awarded interest on Rs.4,67,000/- at saving bank rate from 10.8.2004 till possession and further awarded Rs.30,000/- for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost. Appeal filed by OP was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order deleted cost of Rs.30,000/- against which, this revision petition has been filed. read more +

 

 
© Consumer Redressal 2017. All rights reserved