National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

This tag is associated with 29 posts

UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE – QUACK DOCTOR = According to the appellant, she came across an advertisement published in a newspaper ‘Jan Satta’ dated 8.8.1993 offering treatment of the patients having fits with Ayurvedi medicine by Dr. R.K. Gupta­ respondent No.1. The advertisement impressed the appellant as the respondent No.1 claimed total cure of fits. The appellant wrote a detailed letter to respondent No.1 about her son’s fits during high fever. In response, respondent No.1 sent a letter dated 23rd November, 1993 assuring that he had specialised treatment for the problem of Prashant by Ayurvedic medicines. despite medicines being given regularly the condition of Prashant started deteriorating day by day and the fits which were occasional and occurred only during the high fever, started occurring even without fever. = he is a quack and guilty of medical negligence, criminal negligence and breach of duty as he was playing with the lives of innocent people without understanding the disease. He was prescribing Allopathic medicines, for which he was not competent to prescribe. It was, inter alia, prayed that direction be issued to respondents to pay a sum of Rs.20 lakhs as compensation; to refund the charges paid by the appellant to the respondents and to reimburse the expenses incurred by the appellant on travelling to Rishikesh and a sum of Rs.10 lakhs for undergoing termination of pregnancy. = The National Commission has already held that respondent No.1 was guilty of unfair trade practice and adopted unfair method and deceptive practice by making false statement orally as well as in writing. In view of the aforesaid finding, we hold that both Prashant and the appellant suffered physical and mental injury due to the misleading advertisement, unfair trade practice and negligence of the respondents. The appellant and Prashant thus are entitled for an enhanced compensation for the injury suffered by them. Further, we find no reason given by the National Commission for deducting 50% of the compensation amount and to deposit the same with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the Commission. 16. We, accordingly, set aside that part of the order passed by the National Commission and enhance the amount of compensation at Rs.15 lakhs for payment in favour of the appellant with a direction to the respondents to pay the amount to the appellant within three months. The appeal is allowed but there shall be no separate order as to costs.

Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8660 OF 2009 BHANWAR KANWAR …. APPELLANT VERSUS R.K. GUPTA & ANR.  ….RESPONDENTS J UD G M E N T SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. This   appeal   has   been   preferred   by   the complainant­appellant against the order and judgment dated   29th  January,   2009   passed   by   the   National Consumer   Disputes   Redressal   Commission,   New   Delhi (hereinafter   referred … Continue reading

Avalon Resorts (P) Ltd. and Holiday Solutions = Although the word ‘Red’ has not been defined anywhere, yet according to the opposite party the word ‘Red’ means summer season commencing from 15th week of the year and continues till 33rd week of every year. – It is difficult to fathom as to why the petitioner should pay the maintenance allowance when he has not utilized such facility. One is supposed to pay the allowance when the thing is utilized by him. The termination of the notice on this ground is illegal. -The opposite parties are entitled to get the rent @10000/- per year from 2001 to 2012. The total comes to Rs.1,10,000/-. It is made clear that the complainant can avail the facility for the next 21 years from today. Before availing the opportunity, he can inform the opposite parties. The complainant is also entitled to rent out the said apartment for one week to any person for which the respondent will not raise any objection but in that case, the complainant shall be responsible for the maintenance. The complainant will not pay any maintenance allowance for the year when he does not utilized the facility for a particular year but otherwise he must pay the maintenance allowance. We, therefore, modify the judgment and direct the petitioner to pay Rs.11,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization. The complainant can avail the facility for the next 21 years. Accordingly, both the revision petitions are disposed of.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION NO.  4318 OF  2012  (Against the order dated 31.08.2012 in First Appeal No. 1280 of 2007 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh) Shri Harwinder Singh Randhawa S/o Shri Sohan Singh R/o E/293, Ranjit Avenue Amritsar (Punjab)                                              … Petitioner Versus 1. Avalon Resorts (P) Ltd. Empire Estate, Mehrauli–Gurgaon Road Sultanpur, New Delhi-110030 2. Holiday Solutions, GH-14/34, Ist Floor, Pashchim Vihar New Delhi-110063                                         … Respondents … Continue reading

The factual matrix of this case are that in the month of June, 2003, first respondent had issued an advertisement offering equity shares of the Maruthi Udyog Ltd. (which name has since been changed to Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.) by way of public offer under disinvestment process of this public sector undertaking by Government of India on the basis of bid-cum-offer sale. To compensate the petitioner/complainant in respect of the lesser allotment of 300 shares by paying an amount which shall be equal to the difference in the closing market price of the company shares at the National Stock Exchange on the day of the allotment in question and the fixed allotment price of Rs.125/-. In addition, interest @ 6% shall be paid on this amount of compensation calculated on 300 shares w.e.f. the date of allotment till actual payment to the complainant. (ii) After notionally adjusting the fixed allotment price @ Rs.125 per share for 350 shares i.e. Rs.43,750/-, the complainant would have been entitled for a refund of Rs.71,250/-. Since she received a refund cheque of Rs.5,250/-, the Bank i.e. respondents No.3 & 4 with whom the amount of refund is reported to be lying, shall refund remaining amount of Rs.66,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of allotment till actual payment.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION NO. 2702 OF 2006 (From the order dated 8.6.2006 in First Appeal No.1215 & 1216 of 2004 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Karnataka)   Dr. (Mrs.) B.P. Gayathri R/o Door No.1413, 6th Cross, K.M. Puram, Mysore– 570 004                                    …  Petitioner Versus   1.    Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. … Continue reading

Electricity connections of agriculturist = The respondent/complainant contended that though he had deposited the requisite sum of Rs.3,360/-on 07.12.1998, he had not been given the electricity connection for his tube well and yet persons who had applied under the same scheme after him had been given such connections. The petitioners opposed the complaint mainly on the ground that the scheme, not being viable, had been discontinued with effect from 17.03.1999. (iii) On consideration of the pleadings and evidence, the District Forum allowed the complaint partly and directed the opposite party (OP)/ petitioner: “……………………………… to issue to the complainant a demand notice specifying the requirements if any to be made by him and on his compliance of the demand notice, release the tube well electric connection in his favour. They shall also pay to the complainant a composite sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation and litigation expenses. The order be complied with within one month of the communication excluding then time taken by the complainant to complete the requirement of the demand notice”.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION   NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION No. 1003 OF 2011 (From the order dated 30.11.2010 in First Appeal No.888 of 2005 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh)   1.  Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) The Mall, Patiala Punjab   2.   Assistant Executive Engineer Suburban Dirba Sub Division                                                     Petitioners PSPCL District Sangrur, Punjab   versus … Continue reading

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra, allowed the complaint in the following terms:- “Complainant is hereby directed to pay an amount as per the allotment letter dated 29/09/2005 excluding the amount already paid. In order to avail the facility of Housing loan, opponent is directed to hand over copies of legal and technical sanction of the project and approved plan sanctioned by the Pune Municipal Corporation within a period of 15 days. On receipt of payment of consideration as per allotment letter dated 29/09/2005 the opponent is hereby directed to execute Sale deeds of flat nos.301 & 302 in “Dorabjee Enclave” and hand over possession to the complainant within one month. Opponent is hereby directed to pay compensation of 1 lakh to the complainant for mental agony and harassment within a period of two months from the date of order. Opponent to pay cost of 10,000/- to the complainant within a period of two months from the date of order and bear his own costs.

   NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION   NEW DELHI   FIRST APPEAL NO. 346 OF 2011 (Against the order dated 3.05.2011 in Complaint Case No.CC/09/52 of the State Commission, Maharashtra)     M/s. Dorabjee Estates Pvt. Ltd. Prime Arcade, Office No.1, 1154, Saifee Street, Pune 411 001 Maharashtra                                                                                            ……….Appellant                                                                              Versus   Mr. Shoan Ashok Khetarpal C/32, Hriparva Wanwadi, Pune 411 001, Maharashtra                                                                       ………Respondent   BEFORE … Continue reading

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI- frivolus litigation imposed heavy penalty for not complaining the decree=It is a typical example how a litigation proceeds and continues and in the end there is a profit for the wrongdoers. 50. Learned Amicus articulated common man’s general impression about litigation in following words : “Make any false averment, conceal any fact, raise any plea, produce any false document, deny any genuine document, it will successfully stall the litigation, and in any case, delay the matter endlessly. The other party will be coerced into a settlement which will be profitable for me and the probability of the court ordering prosecution for perjury is less than that of meeting with an accident while crossing the road.”= It is well settled that no leniency should be shown to such type of litigants who in order to cover up their own fault and negligence, goes on filing meritless petitions in different foras. Time and again Courts have held that if any litigant approaches the court of equity with unclean hands, suppress the material facts, make false averments in the petition and tries to mislead and hoodwink the judicial forums, then his petition should be thrown away at the threshold. Equity demands that such unscrupulous litigants whose only aim and object is to deprive the opposite party of the fruits of the decree must be dealt with heavy hands. A strong message is required to be sent to such type of litigants that this Commission is not helpless in such type of matters. 16. In Ravinder Kaur Vs. Ashok Kumar, AIR 2004 SC 904, Apex Court observed ; “Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment debtor to deny the decree holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errors on the part of the judicial forum only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing law’s delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system.”

      NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI                                      FIRST APPEAL NO.502 OF 2011                                                  Alongwith                                      I.A. No.01 of 2011 (For stay)  (Against the order dated  11.11.2011 in E.A. No.25/2010 in CC No.80/2009  of the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh)     R. Narasimha Reddy, S/o R. Satyanarayana Reddy, R/o Flat No.102, Sphinix Apartments, Street No.1, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.                                                                     …..Appellant Vs.     1.      Kuchakula Surender Reddy, S/o Late K. Kantha Reddy, R/o … Continue reading

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI = Appellant’s case is that he suffered from polycystic kidney disease. In June 2003, he had to undergo dialysis since both of his kidneys stopped functioning. Both his elder brothers also suffered from the same disease and his sister was 67 years old, therefore they could not donate him a kidney. His wife suffers from scleroderma for the last 20 years and is 40% handicapped. His son was diagnosed as hydrocephalous and died on 8.4.08. His daughter is a minor. Since, he had no related donor, his dialysis continued for 2 years. One of his kidneys was removed, and as the second one also started deteriorating, he was advised kidney transplant. Appellant also got published an advertisement in the newspaper for a donor. Meanwhile, learning of his plight, his friend Raju Kushwaha, offered to donate his kidney.= Even on merits, appellant has no case as main allegation of appellant is that HLA test was done twice. However, there is no evidence to this effect on record. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that this test was done twice, it was in the interest of the appellant and if the Hospital to be on the safer side and to decrease the risk of transplant failure, has done the test twice, no harm can be said to have been caused to the appellant. 19. The second plea of appellant is that, no discharge certificate was given to him. This plea was raised by the appellant for the first time in its legal notice dated 6.2.2008. 20. Had discharge summary not given at the time of discharge, appellant would not have kept silent for about 3 years, that is, till the date of legal notice dated 6.2.2008. 21. Lastly, there is no force in the plea that there is delay in performing the kidney transplant. As per material available on record, letter given for permission to the respondent hospital was sent on 5.7.2005 and transplant was to be done within one month. If there had been some procedural delay, it cannot be said that delay amounted to any negligence on the part of the respondent. Admittedly, operation for kidney transplant was carried out successfully and there is no evidence that any excessive amount was charged or unnecessary tests were done. 22. We find no reason to disagree with the findings of the State Commission. 23. Present appeal is not maintainable, as the complaint was barred by limitation and even on merits appellant has no case. 24. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, with no order as to costs.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI                                    FIRST APPEAL NO.447 OF 2010  (Against the order dated  18.11.2010 in C.C. No.35/2008  of the State Commission, Madhya Pradesh) O.K. Gaur S/o Late Shri B.R. Gaur Age approx.. 57 years 4/21, Chhatrasal Nagar, Phase-2, Bhopal – 462 021 (Madhya Pradesh)                                                 ….…Appellant Vs. Choithram Hospital and Research Centre P.O. Box No. 131, Maanik Bag Road Indore – 452 014 (Madhya Pradesh)                                                 ….Respondent BEFORE: … Continue reading

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION=purchase of a vehicle on 19.2.1999 by one Shri Kedarnath Tewari/Complainant (since deceased). It was a R.T.V. Vehicle manufactured by M/s Hindustan Motors/OP-1, purchased from their authorized dealers Abhishek Motors, Rewa, MP/OP-3. The case of the Complainant was that the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defects due to which it met with an accident on 17.3.1999. It was repaired by the dealer but, the Complainant allegedly refuse to take delivery of the vehicle. In a consumer complaint filed before District Forum, Rewa on 18.1.2000, the Complainant prayed for refund of Rs.3.5 lakhs with 18% interest or in the alternative, replacement of the exiting vehicle with a new one. The complaint was allowed and the District Forum directed the OPs to refund Rs.3.33 lakhs with 8% interest, together with Rs.25,000/- compensation and Rs 2500 costs.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CIRCUIT BENCH AT BHOPAL     REVISION PETITION NO. 3380 OF 2010 (Against the order dated  24.05.2010 in First Appeal No.1432/2010 & First Appeal No. 2138/ 2009 of the State Commission, Madhya Pradesh) Hindustan Motors Limited Having its Registered Office at: 9/1, R. N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata – 700 … Continue reading

loss due to burglary and house breaking (theft following upon an actual forcible and violent entry). = The case of the Complainant M/s Biswanath Traders before the State Commission was that they were storage agent of the State Civil Supply Corporation; in which capacity they had a storage godown in Jagathsinghpur District. Stocks of rice, wheat, sugar etc. stored in this godown were covered under a policy of protection against burglary and house breaking up to a limit of Rs.6 lakhs. The policy was taken on 15.7.1999 and was designed to indemnify the insured against any loss due to burglary and house breaking (theft following upon an actual forcible and violent entry). =It is not the case of the appellant/National Insurance Company, that the burglary was occasioned by any act of commission or omission on the part of the complainant. Therefore, the question of violation of the terms of the policy does not arise. 13. As for resort to the exclusion clause 4 (a) to justify the repudiation, we note that the case of the appellant/insurance company does not travel beyond stating that the burglary occurred two days after the cyclone. The State Commission has therefore noted the absence of any material, which could suggest that the burglary happened because of the cyclone. It is also not the case of the appellant that the cyclone had so destroyed or damaged the godown as to expose the stocks to burglars. The Written Response of the OP (appellant before us) shows that the burglars had forced opened the grill gate to enter the godown. This kind of forcible entry could have taken place even before the cyclone. Therefore, in our view, the State Commission has rightly and justifiably rejected the argument of the insurance company and rejection of the claim by resort to exclusion 4(a). 14. In the result, we find no merit in this appeal.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI     FIRST APPEAL NO. 673 OF 2006 (Against the order dated 18.8.2006 in C.D. Case No.86 of 2001 of the State Commission, Orissa) National Insurance Company Ltd., Cuttack Divisional Office –II, Managalabag, Cuttack   Through Regional Office –I, Jeewan Bharti Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi- 110 001                                                                                                                         ……….Appellant Versus   … Continue reading

deficiency in service =The Delhi Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as DFC) has filed this appeal against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Delhi in CC No. 609/1993. In this order the State Commission has held the appellant liable for deficiency of service to the complainant. The Commission has therefore awarded a compensation of Rs 2.50 lakhs in favour of the complainant. =a) There was no justification on the part of the appellant/DFC to sanction the loan under the General Scheme. Their claim that the loan application could not be considered under the Mahila Udyog Nidhi Scheme as the cost of the project exceeded Rs.10 lakhs, is not borne out from the records. The application was for a loan of Rs.8.76 lakhs and the sanction was Rs.7.5 lakhs only. b) Direct payment to the machinery supplier by the DFC was in violation of an express condition of the loan sanction order. The violation was further compounded by the delay of nearly six months in releasing the same. c) The claim of the appellant/DFC that the balance of the loan towards margin money for working capital was not released as it was not required, is contrary to the facts on record. The consideration of the loan application for working capital by Punjab and Sind Bank was awaiting a copy of the project appraisal report. This was sent by the appellant/DFC through their letter No.DFC/SLD/R/90/91-92 of 30.7.1992. In this background, the decision of the DFC to cancel the un-drawn portion of the loan finds no legs to stand on. d) Correspondence on record shows that the DFC cancelled the loan component of Rs.2.75 lakhs towards for margin of working capital on 26.5.1992. But, two months later, on 30.7.1992, the project report was forwarded by the DFC itself to Punjab and Sind Bank for consideration of working capital loan. It clearly shows that the cancellation of the balance of loan was premature and without any justification. 9. In the above background, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view of the State Commission that the appellant was deficient in service on several counts. We therefore, find no merit in this appeal and dismiss it for the same reason. The order of the Delhi State Commission in CC NO.609/1993, awarding an overall compensation of Rs.2.5 lakhs to the respondent/complainant is confirmed. In addition, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we also award a cost of Rs.20,000/-, which shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent/complainant within a period of two months. For delay in payment, if any, the amount shall carry interest at 9%.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI     FIRST APPEAL NO. 356 OF 2006 (Against the order dated 21.04.2006  in Complaint Case No.609 of 1993 of the State Commission, Delhi) Delhi Financial Corporation, Saraswati Bhawan, E Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi- 110001                                                                                                                                            ……….Appellant Versus   Late Smt. Saroj Gupta Through her L.RS.   1. Sh. Rajesh Gupta Son of … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,881,026 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com