Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: delhi state consumer disputes redressal commission scdrc new delhi Page 1 of about 1,221 results (0.261 seconds)

May 30 2014 (TRI)

M/S. Matta Automobiles Vs. Brij Mohan

Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1. Aggrieved by order dt. 19.01.2009 passed in complaint case no. 1065/2007 by DCDRF (East) Convenient Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave, Delhi, opposite party filed this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1956 (Hereinafter called the Act). 2. The facts of the case are that complainant/respondent is owner of Hyundai Ascent car bearing no. DL2FJ-0070. On 26.06.2007, he was going to Hathras (UP) from Shakarpur (Delhi) along with his friends. On the way he went to a petrol pump namely Matta Automobiles, appellant/OP, and asked the vender/operator to fill speed diesel. However, inadvertently or by mistake the fuel operator filled petrol instead of diesel. When the complainant detected this blunder mistake he brought this fact to the notice of the owner/respondent who assured that petrol filled in the tank will be removed and that no harm to the engine of the car will be caused. He called a mechanic from Tata Telco who removed the petrol fr...

Tag this Judgment!

May 28 2014 (TRI)

M/S. M.M. Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance

Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

S.C. Jain, Member: 1) The facts of the case are that the complainant is a Pvt. Ltd. company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at New Delhi and engaged in the business of manufacturing of readymade garments and woollen knit wear. 2) The complaint through their banker namely Punjab National Bank, took fire policy in the sum of Rs. 2.20 Crores on 7thNovember 2006 for one year. It was further stated that on 26thDecember, 2006 at about 6.00 pm a fire broke out in the premises of the complainant factory which had been insured under the fire policy. Immediately the OP No. 2 had been informed by the complainant about the fire and the bank on its turn informed the OP No. 1 about incident of fire. The Fire Brigade was also called to control and extinguish the fire. It is further case of complainant that the surveyor came to visit the site only on 27thDecember 2006 at about 6.30 pm i.e. after more than 24 hours of breaking out the fire and receiving the ...

Tag this Judgment!

May 28 2014 (TRI)

Ms. Jyoti Khurana Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

S.C. Jain, Member: 1. The Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 2. The facts which are mentioned in the present complaint are that the complainant in the month of May-June 2006 took a loan (Personal) to the Tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lac Only) from OP. The said Loan was disbursed on 26.06.2006 by the OP, after execution of an agreement bearing No. 5255. As per the said loan agreement the first E.M.I. was due and payable in the month of July 2006 and the last E.M.I. was due and payable in December 2008. The period of loan was 30 months starting from July 2006 and ending in December 2008, as such Advance P.D.C.(Post Dated Cheques) amounting to Rs. 12,272/- each, were duly handed over to the OP by the complainant , IN ADVANCE, before the personal loan was disbursed. 3. The complainants father was not keeping good health as such around February 2007 the complainant decided to fully REPAY the above mentioned Personal Loan. Accordin...

Tag this Judgment!

May 28 2014 (TRI)

Amit Chawla Vs. M/S. Parsvnath Developers Ltd.

Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) Complainant Sh. Amit Chawla has filed this Consumer Complaint u/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) against the OP-Parsvnath Developers Ltd. for payment of Rs. 24,49,276/- comprising Rs. 14,49,276/- as interest calculated @ 24% plus Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. The complainant further claimed a sum of Rs. 5 Lac towards compensation on account of deficiency of service/negligence and cost as well. 2) Relevant facts of the case are that the OP is a developer who constructs flats, villas, houses etc. the OP issued a pre plan of residential project in the year 2006. The complainant booked three bedroom apartment in the above mentioned upcoming project and paid a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- as advance payment. Complainant filed an advance registration form consisting of terms and conditions. One of the terms was that OP will offer a residential apartment to buyers within a period of six months and this advance amount will be a...

Tag this Judgment!

May 26 2014 (TRI)

Jyoti Sharma Vs. Kunal Khanna

Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

N.P. Kaushik, Member (Judicial): 1.This appeal by the OP of case No. 66 of 2012 titled as Kunal Khanna vs. Jyoti Sharma is directed against the order dated 23rdOct., 2013 passed by District Forum (Central), Kashmiri Gate vide which the OP was directed to pay Rs.29,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of receipt of Rs.22,000/- i.e. 10.6.2011 till realization. The OP was also directed to pay to complainant Rs.15,000/- for harassment, pain and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation . 2. In brief the complainant who happened to be a student of 20 years of age approached the OP Ms. Jyoti Sharma for career development after being allured by an advertisement given by her. Ms. Jyoti Sharma was running a training institute in the name of Sunrise Training Institute at House No.51/20, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. A job, after requisite training, was also assured. 30% of the salary from his job was to be paid to the OP till the complainant remains in job. 3. Admittedly the com...

Tag this Judgment!

May 21 2014 (TRI)

Ved Kumari Dhawan Vs. M/S. Parsvnath Developers Ltd.

Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1. Complainant MRs.Ved Kumari Dhawan filed this complaint against the OP M/s Parsvnath Developers under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) for refund of Rs.28,38,737/- alongwith interest and compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and cost of litigation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant booked a flat on 30.04.2006 in upcoming residential project of the OP in the name and style of œParsavnath Privilege? at Greater Noida-UP, and made an initial payment of Rs.10 Lac vide cheque No. 817414 dt. 30.04.2006 drawn on ICICI Bank, Noida. She further made payment of Rs.3,21,687.50/- through cheque No. 504280 dt. 20.03.2007, Rs.5,76,905/- through cheque No. 504292 dt. 21.11.2007, Rs.4,70072.50/- through cheque No. 227928 dt. 27.05.2008 and Rs.4,70,072/- through cheque No. 724683 dt. 08.10.2008 totalling to Rs.28,38,737/- (Rs.Twenty Eight Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Seven Only) (payment receipt...

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 2014 (TRI)

Delhi Jal Board Vs. Uma Rani

Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

S.C. Jain, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 17.5.2012 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressalforum-VII, ShekhSarai, New Delhi in complaint case No.254/2010 titled Smt. UmaRaniVs. Executive Engineer (South-West-II), Delhi JalBoard. 2. Facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant is a registered consumer of the appellant having water connection No.2058 installed at her house bearing No.157, Village Post Office Dhansa, NewDelhi. The respondent/complainant alleged in her complaint filed before the Distt. Forum that the Lineman of the appellant/OP removed the cap and joined the two lines from the bore well No.8 located near her house which is situated at a greater height than the road passing near her house. It has been further stated by the respondent/complainant that the supplied water was blocked by putting the cap from flowing downward with the help of the said cap and when the line man started removing that cap she objected for t...

Tag this Judgment!

May 16 2014 (TRI)

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Singh and Anot ...

Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

S.A. Saddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1. Appellant/OP M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed this appeal under Section 15 of C.P.Act, 1986 against the order dated 14.7.2011 passed by DCDRF-VI, K.G.Marg, New Delhi under Complaint case No.1620/09. 2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent No.1 Shri Abhishek Singh is the owner of Bolero Car bearing No.UP14 AN 0044. This vehicle was duly insured with OP/appellant for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- for the period 19.9.2008 to 18.9.2009. It was ensured as a private vehicle. During the intervening night of 2-3.2.2009 this vehicle was stolen from outside of complainants NOIDA office for sometime he tried to search the vehicle but could not find it. He immediately informed the local police. Intimation was also sent to Insurance Company on 3rdFebruary itself through mobile phone of Mr. Parveen and also through Fax (Exhibit Cw1/I). The vehicle could not be traced by the police. The complainant, therefore, preferred the...

Tag this Judgment!

May 16 2014 (TRI)

Jagdish Singh Chauhan Vs. the Additional Director

Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) Sh. Jadish Sindh Chauhan, complainant/appellant has filed this appeal against order dt. 17.08.2011 passed in Complaint No. 430/2000 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central) Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, Kashmiri Gate. 2) Relevant Facts relating to this appeal are noted below:- The complainant is Retd. Government Servant and claimed himself to be a consumer in connection with the medical facilities to be provided to him under CGHS Scheme. The Ld. District Forum through its impugned order dt. 17.08.2011 declined to hold him to be a consumer and dismissed the compliant. The Ld. State Commission was also of the opinion that the appeal had no merit and dismissed the same in limine on 19.04.2012. The appellant/complainant felt dissatisfied and preferred a revision petition before the Honble National Commission. Honble National Commission vide its order dt. 09.05.2013 set aside the order of the State Commission and remanded back the appeal t...

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 2014 (TRI)

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Divisional Manager Vs. ...

Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi

S.A. Saddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of C.P.Act, 1986 against order dated 31.1.2012 passed by Ld. DCDRF Vikas Bhawan, I.P.Estate, New Delhi, in complaint case No.1664/2008. 2. Relevant facts are that respondent/complainant Shri Suman Kaushik in the capacity of proprietor of Kaushik Tours and Travels, New Delhi obtained insurance policy No.212200/31/2007/1133 for a Tata Sumo Victa LX passenger carrying vehicle bearing Regd. No.DL-IVB-4233 for a sum of Rs.5,07,000/- for one year w.e.f. 21.6.06 to 20.6.07. This vehicle was purchased after securing loan from Tata Motors Finance Ltd. on an EMI of Rs.14,500/- per month. Unfortunately, this vehicle met with an accident on 6.11.2006 at about 1.40 A.M. (mid-night) with a Tata Indica Car No.HR-26P-2700. This vehicle came from Munirka side at a high speed, took turn at a red light signal of Ber Sarai, Hauz Khas, Delhi and straight away collided with the vehicle of the complainant. At the time of acciden...

Tag this Judgment!


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