//
archives

suresh chandra

This tag is associated with 16 posts

“It is admitted by the OP that the complainant had purchased the package of 30 tickets against the payment of Rs.50,000/-. The OP has also admitted that the complainant has not used any ticket. The complainant had made several requests to the OP to allow him use the package for Delhi-Bangalore, Mumbai-Bangalore. He has sent several e-mails and has made several phone calls from Delhi to the Head Office of the OP at Bangalore. The complainant also went to Bangalore to personally request for refund of the amount but all his requests were declined by the OP on the ground that the sector (sic – scheme?) chosen by the complainant had a condition that the complainant can fly under the scheme only on the sectors available under the scheme and also that the refund of the amount was not permissible under the scheme. The OP has failed to adduce evidence that the sectors in which the complainant wishes to fly are not covered under the scheme. Non refund of the amount even when the complainant is not allowed to avail the package for the sectors on which he wanted to fly amounts to unfair trade practice and we hold the OP guilty of unfair trade practice in retaining the money of the complainant. We, therefore, direct the OP to refund to the complainant the amount deposited by him. As the conduct of the OP has caused mental tension and inconvenience to the complainant we direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- and an amount of Rs.2500/- towards cost of litigation.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION NO. 3278 OF 2007 (From the order dated 09.08.2007 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in Appeal no. 384 of 2007) Kingfisher Airlines Kingfisher House Western Express Highway                                                    Petitioner Ville Parle (East) Mumbai – 440 009 versus M. L. Sudheen Son of Late M. K. Lakshman … Continue reading

UNDER QUALITY IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION =the photographs produced by the complainant are sufficient to establish that the quality of the construction work is very poor. The technical report of the architect cannot be ignored on the ground that these are the words of the complainant. The report along with the photographs is sufficient to prove that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service, causing loss to the complainant. The plea that the opposite party had done the work as per the directions of Shri P. S. Raizada and Shri Pandey, the representatives of the complainant, is also not acceptable because these persons were authorised by the complainant for making timely payment to the opposite party, so that the work may not be stopped for want of funds. Nowhere in the agreement is it stated that these persons would also verify the quality of work. Therefore, we are of the view that the appeal filed by the opposite party is devoid of merit and hence it is liable to be dismissed.

        NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITIONS NO. 3643-3644 OF 2011 (From the order dated 22.03.2011 of Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun in First Appeals no. 78 and 83 of 2009)   Shambhu Paswan 215, Chandreshwar Nagar Hrishikesh                                                                         Petitioner District Dehradun Uttarakhand   versus   Shri Kuldeep Chandra Bhasin MIG – 61, Hrishikesh Colony Hrishikesh, District Dehradun                                             Respondent Uttarakhand   … Continue reading

The case of the complainant is that he is driver by profession and approached respondent no.2 for financial assistance to the extent of Rs.50,000/- for purchasing lorry AIS 4356 for a total consideration of Rs.2,25,500/- for which a financial agreement was entered into on 5.3.2005. The balance amount was paid by the complainant himself. After a few days of taking the loan, the petitioner made arrangements for the funds from other sources and paid back the entire amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest to respondent no.3. Respondent no.3 while acknowledging the amount issued a payment schedule with Form no.35, i.e., termination of agreement of hire purchase and no objection letter to the respondent no.1 for cancellation of hypothecation and release of the vehicle. But respondent no.1 declined to cancel the hypothecation of the vehicle by stating that he had received some objections from respondent no.2. Respondent no.2, according to the petitioner, seized the lorry without giving any notice to the petitioner. Respondent no.2 also sent a letter to the petitioner informing that some amount was due to be paid by him pertaining to this vehicle and called upon the petitioner to pay the said amount by specified date failing which, respondent no.2 would dispose of the vehicle. The petitioner replied by saying that he had paid the entire amount to the Managing Partner (respondent no.3) of respondent no.2 Finance Co. and no dues were left to be paid by him to respondent no.2. Failing to get a positive response from respondent no.2 in the matter, petitioner lodged a consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking direction against respondents for release of vehicle, payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as loss of earnings and mental agony with interest @ 12% and cost of Rs.2,000/-. =We also agree with the State Commission that keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the lorry in question cannot be directed to be returned to the appellant and hence considering the year of manufacture of the lorry and its date of acquisition by the petitioner, payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner is reasonable and adequate in the given situation. In the circumstances, since no case has been made out to justify our interference with the impugned order under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, the revision petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

  NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 4478 OF 2009 (From the Order dated 6.7.2009 in Appeal No. 40/2006 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) B. Narasimha                                                                                                Petitioner S/o Janardhan R/o H. No.5-05, Sarvel Village Narayanapur Mandal Nalgonda District A.P. Versus     1. The Regional Transport Officer, (RTA)                                                Respondents Nalgonda A.P 2. The Manager Hari Hara Auto … Continue reading

Since the life assured died within a period of three months five days from the date of revival/commencement of the policy it was treated as a case of an early death claim and hence investigation was carried out by the OPs as provided under Section 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938. During the course of investigation, OPs obtained the Medical Record, own Identity Book of the life assured from his employer and from these documents, they came to know that the life assured was an old patient of pulmonary T.B., but he had suppressed this material fact/information in the proposal forms of all four policies and answered the questions in paragraphs11(a) to (h) of the proposal forms in negative and in para 11(i) stated ‘Good’ about his usual state of health

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION                                  NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.  2048  OF 2009. Along with            Application for Condonation of Delay (From the order dated 03.12.2008   in Appeal No.  406 of 2005 of the   State Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission, Jharkhand)   Smt. Kamoda Devi W/o Late Muni Dom, Quarter No. 152/E, Bhawnathpur Township, P.O. + P.S. Bhawnathpur, District Garhwa, Ranchi, Jharkhand.                                                     ….Petitioner. … Continue reading

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/-. = In the facts and circumstances of the case, the goods purchased were not for self-consumption, but ultimately were for resale, and primarily it was for commercial purpose, with a view to make profit. Nobody undertakes plantation of 1800 poplar trees for sale (resale) in full or part without the aim of earning – profit. Nobody takes up any such activity in 9 acres of irrigated land for self-employment. 14. In the aforementioned circumstances, in our view, the complainant will not fall within the definition of consumer as per law settled on subject by this Commission and also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited earlier in view of which Consumer Fora would not have entertained this complaint. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, complaint is dismissed. 15. However, if the respondents / complainant chooses to file a suit for the relief claimed in these proceedings, he can do so according to law and, in such a case, he can claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting proceedings under Consumer Protection Act while computing the period of limitation prescribed for such a suit as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute (supra).”

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION  NO. 3829 & 3829-A OF 2007 (From the order dated 06.07.2007 in Appeal No. 368 & 407/1999 of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad)   1.  Prithviraj Naryanrao Chavan, R/o Village Nagamthan, Tal. Vaijapur, District Aurangabad Maharashtra 2.  Pralhad Laxmanrao Chavan, R/o Village Nagamthan, Tal. Vaijapur, District Aurangabad Maharashtra                                             …      Petitioner (s) Versus The National Seeds Corporation Ltd., … Continue reading

mere pleadings are not enough, one has to file affidavit to prove the case. absence of affidavit is fatal=No evidence has been filed before us through this revision petition to rebut the ground on which the appeal came to be dismissed by the State Commission vide its impugned order. Coming to the merits, so far as the order of the District Forum is concerned, we find that as per the well-established procedure the District Forum has to settle the consumer disputes on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the opposite party, where the opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint. Since the petitioner failed to prove its submissions through affidavit in evidence, the same could not be accepted by the District Forum. It is seen from the order of the District Forum that after filing its reply containing submissions not supported by any affidavit, the petitioner also chose to remain absent and was proceeded against ex parte. In the circumstances, we do not find any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the District Forum or dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner by the State Commission through the impugned order.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 2864 OF 2011 (From the Order dated 31.05.2011 in FA No 738/2011 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur) Indian Institute of Professional Studies Through Mr. Anuj Kumar Goyal                                                       Petitioner Assistant Director Deep Bhawan, Polytechnic Chauraha Faizabad Road, Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.) Versus Smt. … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,184 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

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

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com