Skip to content


Latest Judgments Judgments > Court:Uttaranchal Page:2

Apr 23 2014

The Manager State Bank of India Dharampur Vs. R.P. Kandwal, Dehradun

  • Decided on : 23-Apr-2014

Court : Uttaranchal - State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) - Dehradun

C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.04.2013 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 248 of 2012, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the opposite party to restore the full pension of the complainant w.e.f. 01.08.2011 and also to pay him a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses within a month from the date of the order, failing which the total amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the consumer complaint till actual payment. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Sh. R.P. Kandwal is a retired Central Governments employee, who retired from the service on 31.07.1996. He had commuted a part of his pension at the time of retirement, which was to be restored after 15 years, i.e. on 31.07.2011, but the State Bank of India, Dharampur Branch, Dehradun (in short Bank?) opposite party did not restore the same inspite of several requests made by the complainant. This led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the consumer complaint and directed the Bank as stated above. Aggrieved by the order, the Bank through its Manager has filed this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-opposite party and respondent-complainant in person and also ...

Apr 22 2014

Anoop Radwal, Chamoli (Uttarakhand) Vs. Chairman Tula’s ...

  • Decided on : 22-Apr-2014

Court : Uttaranchal - State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) - Dehradun

C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.04.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, whereby the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint No.73 of 2011. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainantSh. Anoop Radwal took admission in the second year of Mechanical Engineering on 10.07.2010 in Tulas Institute, Dhoolkot, Chakrata Road, Dehradunopposite party under lateral entry system and deposited a sum of Rs. 81,128/- against tuition fee and Rs. 12,000/- under other heads on 12.08.2010. However, after attending few classes, the complainant felt that the academic atmosphere of the institute was not proper and also there was no safety of personal belongings. As such, he decided to leave the institute and asked the authorities of the institute to refund the fee. On 29.12.2010, the complainants father Sh. S.L. Radwal also came to the institute and requested the Director of the institute to refund the fee deposited by his son. When the Director of the institute refused to refund the fee, the complainant sent a notice to the Director on 26.02.2011 in this regard. Inspite of receiving the notice, the institute did not refund the fee. This led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, dismissed the consumer complaint vide its order dated 11.04.2012. Aggrieved by the order, the complainant has filed this ...

Apr 17 2014

Chief Manager Punjab National Bank Clock Tower Branch, Dehradun Vs. Ja ...

  • Decided on : 17-Apr-2014

Court : Uttaranchal - State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) - Dehradun

C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.11.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, allowing the consumer complaint No. 34 of 2012 and directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant an interest @ 9% per annum on Rs. 20,000/- for the period from 24.06.2011 to 26.09.2011 and Rs. 9,500/- towards penalty and also to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,100/- towards litigation expenses, within a month (30 days) from the date of the order. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that Sh. Prakash Prateek, son of the complainant-Sh. Jai Prakash Lal, has a saving bank account with Punjab National Bank, Clock Tower Branch, Dehradun-opposite party. On 23.06.2011, Sh. Prakash Prateek went to the Banks ATM for remitting a fee of Rs. 20,000/- payable to IIT, from his saving bank account by using ATM (Master Card), but the ATM system showed that Bank declined payment?. When he again attempted to remit the money a new message was shown by the system that Insufficient fund? and the balance amount in his account is only Rs. 2,000/-. When Sh. Prakash Prateek contacted the Manager of the bank about the said problem, he was told that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- has been debited from his saving bank account and the balance amount was Rs. 2,000/-. He was shocked, as the said amount was not transferred to I.I.T.s account under fee head. When Sh. Prakash Prateek sought help in this regard from the call centre of the bank, the call centre also could not ...

Apr 16 2014

United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager ...

  • Decided on : 16-Apr-2014

Court : Uttaranchal - State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) - Dehradun

B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 15.05.2010 passed by the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal in consumer complaint No. 04 of 2009, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant insurance company to pay compensation of Rs.65,401/- to the respondent complainant; Rs.2,000/- towards special damages and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses, in all, Rs.69,401/- within a month from the date of the order, failing which the above amount was directed to carry interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle No. UP07-K-9803. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant United India Insurance Company Limited for the period from 15.10.2007 to 14.10.2008 for sum of Rs.1,30,000/-. On 13.03.2008, the insured vehicle met with an accident at a place near Nakot Road, Nakul Khal Nala Chowk, 60 kms. away from Rishikesh. The intimation of the accident was given by the complainant to the insurance company on 14.03.2008. The surveyor of the insurance company visited the spot on 15.03.2008 and inspected the vehicle. The complainant got the vehicle repaired, in which he spent a sum of Rs.82,000/-. The complainant submitted the bills of repairs with the insurance company and completed ...

Apr 15 2014

Classic Group of Hotels A Unit of New Age Hotel and Resorts Limited, N ...

  • Decided on : 15-Apr-2014

Court : Uttaranchal - State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) - Dehradun

B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 16.09.2008 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 222 of 2007, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellants opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the respondents complainants together with interest @9% p.a. pendente lite and future; Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainants became the members of the Special Holiday Scheme floated by the opposite parties and entered into an agreement with the authorised representative of the opposite party No. 2 on 24.04.2005. The complainants deposited a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards Membership Fee. In the year 2005, the complainants applied with the opposite parties to Shimla Tour Package, but the opposite parties did not provide any tour package to the complainants. Again in the year 2006, the complainants applied for Bhimtal Tour Package, but the same was also not provided by the opposite parties. In the year 2007, the complainants asked the opposite parties for providing reservation for Manali trip, but the complainants did not receive any confirmation regarding the booking. It is alleged that the opposite parties did not provide any tour package to the complainants. Alleging ...

Apr 11 2014

Senior Superintendent Post Offices and Another Vs. Lavang Lata Sharma ...

  • Decided on : 11-Apr-2014

Court : Uttaranchal - State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) - Dehradun

C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.09.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar, in consumer complaint No. 08 of 2013, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the Postal Department to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs. 1.00 lac, within a month from the date of the order. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainantsSmt. Lavang Lata Sharma and Sh. Navin Chandra Sharma had jointly opened a Term Deposit Account bearing No. 2224084 with the Sub-Post Office, Mayapur, Haridwar and deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 11.01.2005 for a period of two years. When the complainants submitted the pass-book to the Post Office on 03.02.2010, they were told that the maturity amount of the said term deposit account, amounting to Rs. 57,488/-, has been withdrawn on 13.03.2008 and the account has been closed. The complainants were shocked and made a lot of correspondence with different authorities of the Postal Department, but to no avail. This led the complainants to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar on 04.01.2013. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the consumer complaint vide its order dated 28.09.2013 and directed the Postal Department as stated above. Aggrieved by the order, the Post Master, Sub-Post Office, Mayapur, Haridwar and Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Dehradun Division, Dehradun, who were opposite ...

Apr 10 2014

M/s. Duncans Industries and Others Vs. Mrinal Kanti Das and Others

  • Decided on : 10-Apr-2014

Court : Uttaranchal - State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) - Dehradun

B.C. Kandpal, President (Oral): 1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar in consumer complaint No. 107 of 2006. By the order impugned, the District Forum has ex-parte allowed the consumer complaint against the opposite parties and directed the opposite parties to pay sum of Rs.34,000/- to the complainant together with interest @14.50% from October, 2002 till payment; Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.34,000/- with the opposite party No. 1 M/s Duncans Industries, Kolkata on 21.12.2000 for a period of three years under a fixed deposit scheme carrying interest @14.50% p.a. The interest was to be paid after every three months. The interest was paid to the complainant upto September, 2002, but thereafter the interest was not paid to him. The complainant sent several letters to the opposite parties, but neither the principal amount was refunded, nor the interest was paid. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar. 3. The District Forum issued notice to the opposite parties, but the opposite parties did not appear before the District Forum and, as such, the District Forum ...

Apr 10 2014

Mohd. Irshad Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, through Divis ...

  • Decided on : 10-Apr-2014

Court : Uttaranchal - State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) - Dehradun

B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed by the complainant against the order dated 24.08.2012 passed by the District Forum, Nainital in consumer complaint No. 115 of 2010, whereby the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint filed by the complainant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant Mohd. Irshad was the registered owner of Tata Indica car No. UA04-D-8686. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite party United India Insurance Company Limited for the period from 15.01.2010 to 14.01.2011. On 21.01.2010, the insured vehicle met with an accident at Pangoot Kilbary Road, Nainital and got damaged to the extent of 75%. The complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company and completed all the formalities. The insurance company, however, vide their letter dated 07.07.2010 repudiated the claim of the complainant as No Claim?. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Nainital. 3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,04,500/- on cash loss basis; that Sh. Chandrapal Singh Tomar was appointed as investigator, who in his investigation report stated that the complainant had sold the subject vehicle to Mohd. Irfan S/o ...

Apr 09 2014

Union of India Through Secretary, New Delhi and Another Vs. Dalvir Sin ...

  • Decided on : 09-Apr-2014

Court : Uttaranchal - State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) - Dehradun

B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 20.09.1999 passed by the District Forum, Pauri Garhwal in consumer complaint No. 56 of 1998, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties to immediately set right the telephone connection No. 3130 of the complainant and not to recover any amount from the complainant w.e.f. June, 1995 till the telephone is set right and the opposite parties were also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant together with interest @12% p.a. w.e.f. June, 1995 till payment and Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is a medical practitioner and in the year 1994, he had taken telephone connection No. 3130 from the telecom department. The said telephone was working properly. However, in June, 1995, the telephone exchange of Bedikhal went out of order and as a result thereof, the telephone of the complainant is lying dead since June, 1995. The complainant lodged several complaints with the opposite parties, but to no avail. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Pauri Garhwal. 3. The opposite parties filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the telephone of the ...

Apr 07 2014

Jagdish Chand Vs. Manager Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. a ...

  • Decided on : 07-Apr-2014

Court : Uttaranchal - State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) - Dehradun

C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.04.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 57 of 2010, whereby the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that one Sh. Jagdish Chand had purchased a Health Plan Insurance Policy No. HW00040304000101 from Royal Sundram Alliance Companyopposite party No. 1 on 01.08.2007 for the period from 01.08.2007 to 31.07.2008 and paid a premium of Rs.2,529/-. The policy was duly renewed for next year for the period from 01.08.2008 to 31.07.2009. For the deposit of premium, a grace period of 15 was days allowed by the insurance company and, therefore, for the renewal of the said policy for the period from 01.08.2009 to 31.07.2010, the premium was sent by the complainant to opposite party No. 1 on 11.08.2009 through speed post from G.P.O., Dehradun opposite party No. 2. It is alleged that the Postal Department could not deliver the speed post within 72 hours and it was received by opposite party No. 1 on 17.08.2009. Since the premium was received by the insurance company after expiry of the grace period of 15 days, the insurance company, instead of renewing the policy, issued a new Health Plan Policy to the complainant. The complainant has stated that if a policy is timely renewed and remains in force continuously for three consecutive years, then it carries certain additional benefits for the insured. Since the ...

Get Latest cases via RSS

RSS feed
Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //