Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: uttar pradesh state consumer disputes redressal commission scdrc lucknow Page 1 of about 10 results (0.125 seconds)

Oct 24 2011 (TRI)

Star India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dalip Singh and Another

Court : Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Lucknow

Bhanwar Singh, President: Oral: 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants of the above mentioned two appeals. None is present on behalf of the respondents. The respondents/complainants appeared as caveators but have not turned up today. Their Counsel Mr. A.K. Vaidya is also not available. The cause-list of date was displayed on the Internet through the Commissions website, still none has come forward on behalf of the respondents/complainants. In the circumstances, we proceed to decide both the appeals on merit. 2. The District Consumer Forum by means of the impugned split judgments pronounced separately in complaint Nos. 135 of 2005 and 136 of 2005 have given rise to these two appeals. Both the above mentioned complaints were dismissed by the President of the District Forum, Bulandshahr in the light of this Commissions judgment in revision No. 174 of 2008. Sri Dalip Singh was the complainant of both the complaint cases and he filed the two complaints with the a...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 2011 (TRI)

Noida Management System Private Limited Vs. New Okhla Industrial Devel ...

Court : Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Lucknow

1. Bhanwar Singh, President - Heard Sri Deepak Mehrotra, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri Rajneesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite parties. Also perused the record. 2. This complaint has been filed by NOIDA Management System Private Limited against the opposite parties namely New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and. Industrial Development Commissioner, State of U.P. praying for a direction to the Chairman and Commissioner of the above mentioned authorities respectively to deliver factual possession of plot no.B-007, Sector 68Noida free from all encroachments or in the alternative to allot another site of the some size to the complainant. Further interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount deposited by the complainant has been claimed on the basis of plea that the complainant has not yet been able to derive advantage out of the allotted plot on account of encroachment over it. A compensation for Rs.10,00,000/- has further been asked for on account of the physical and men...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 22 2011 (TRI)

Dr. Virendra Srivastava Vs. Surendra Lal Srivastava and Another

Court : Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Lucknow

Bhanwar Singh, President: 1. All these three appeals have arisen out of one and the same judgment dated 26.5.2005 of the District Consumer Forum, Gorakhpur whereby a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 was awarded with the direction to Dr. Virendra Srivastava and the National Insurance Company Limited to pay the aforesaid amount of compensation within one month. 2. All the three parties felt aggrieved of the said judgment. The complainants Sri Surendra Lal Srivastava and others have preferred Appeal No. 1360/2005 highlighting their grievance and prayed for an award of higher compensation as demanded by them in their complaint. According to them the awarded amount is inadequate. As a matter of fact, as pleaded by them, it should be atleast Rs. 4,50,000 along with interest. 3. Dr. Virendra Srivastava has by filing his Appeal No. 1117/2005 prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment on the ground that there was no negligence on his part and whatever the treatment of Sri Surendra Lal Srivas...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2011 (TRI)

Bank of Baroda and Others Vs. Mrs. Sankari Devi

Court : Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Lucknow

1. Bhanwar Singh, President We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire record. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 16.3.2007 of the District Consumer Forum-I, Moradabad whereby the appellant Bank of Baroda, the successor bank of the erstwhile Bareilly Corporation Bank Ltd., was directed to pay to the respondent/complainant Smt. Sankari Devi interest @ 9% per annum on the P.F. amount of Rs.2,59,305, w.e.f. 1.1.1993 till the payment was received on 8.3.2004. 3. Sri Durga Singh, the husband of Smt. Sankari Devi had served Bareilly Corporation Bank Ltd, which was taken over by Bank of Baroda on 12.6.1999. He commenced his service on 4.5.1954 and retired on 30.9.1992. It is not disputed that his P.F. amount of Rs.2,59,305 had been received by Sri Durga Singh during his life time vide Bank of Baroda's cheque dated 12.2.2004. Sri Durga Singh died on 23.6.2004 and after his death his wife Smt. Sankari Devi filed her complaint with the al...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 2011 (TRI)

Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Narendra Kumar Jain

Court : Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Lucknow

Bhanwar Singh, President: 1. We have heard Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the GDA. Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain who was present in person yesterday before us had already made his submissions. He had referred to the decision of the Apex Court in GDA v. Balbir Singh and Others, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC)=III (2004) SLT 161, and with reference to the said judgment contended that whatever amount as interest and compensation has been paid to him cannot be refunded on the request of the GDA. Admittedly, Sri Narendra Kumar Jain was not a party to the bunch of petitions before the Supreme Court in the matter of GDA v.Balbir Singh and Others. 2. Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain before this round of litigation filed another complaint case No. 1314/1994 which was decided by the District Consumer Forum, Ghaziabad on 18.12.1996. The GDA was directed to hand over possession of plot No. D/363, Govindpuram to the complainant within three months and also pay interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till the dat...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 11 2011 (TRI)

NizamuddIn Vs. Alimullah and Others

Court : Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Lucknow

Bhanwar Singh, President. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by Sri Nizamuddin who is the real nephew of the respondent Sri Alimullah Warsi and cousin of Sri Alimullah's son Sri Mainuddin Warsi, the respondent no.2, against the impugned judgment of September 17, 2008 of the District Consumer Forum, Kushi Nagar and order dated 12-01-2010 passed by the same Forum. The third respondent Sri Anwar Ahmad being Son-in-Law of Sri Alimullah Warsi is the brother in law of Sri Mainuddin Warsi. 2. Whereas by the original judgment of September 17, 2008, the Consumer Forum below had allowed the complaint of the three respondents with a direction to the appellant to repay their outstanding sum of Rs.1,44,000/- besides Rs.5,000/- as compensation, the other order relates to the restoration/recall application of the appellant which was dismissed as not maintainable. 3. The appellant being aggrieved of the judgment and orders referred to above filed this appeal with the averments that the dispute r...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 19 2011 (TRI)

Rakesh Kumar Tewari Vs. Vice President, Kanpur Development Authority

Court : Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Lucknow

1. Bhanwar Singh, PresidentHeard Sri Anil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the appellant and revisionist and Sri N.C. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for K.D.A. 2. As the present appeal and revision arise out of the same dispute we take them together for disposal. The dispute subsisting between the parties lies in a narrow compass. The crucial question we have been called upon to answer is as to whether the appellant of appeal no.2039/2006 and the revisionist of revision no.129/2008 is under an obligation to deposit the price of the additional land on the enhanced rate as demanded vide letter dated 2.12.2002, even though the appellant/complainant who happened to be the revisionist of the revision mentioned above deposited the entire money demanded? 3. The complainant was allotted by the KDA a plot of 180 sq. Meters and he deposited the entire price of Rs.1,30,000/- in time. Subsequently, the complainant was informed that the adjoining land i.e. 208.13 Sq. Meters may also be allotted to him ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 2011 (TRI)

Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Vs. Bhagirath Sewa Sans ...

Court : Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Lucknow

Bhanwar Singh, President: Oral: 1. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties at length and perused the entire record before us. 2. The core issue which requires our determination and which is the main bone of contention between the parties is as to whether the interest to be levied upon the complainant/allottee of the plot No. 19 measuring 8190 sq. metres Greater Noida has to be reckoned with from the date of initial allotment-cum-intimation letter dated 16.3.1999 as pleaded by the appellant authority or it is to be calculated w.e.f. 16.9.1999 i.e. from the date of the revised allotment-cum-intimation letter as pleaded by the respondent/complainant? 3. The facts which are not disputed would indicate that plot No. 19 having an area of 8190 sq. metres was allotted to Bhagirath Sewa Sansthan for establishment of Integrated Higher Secondary School at Greater Noida at the rate of Rs. 625.00 per sq. metre. Out of this land, 4047 sq. metres land had to be given free of cost for play-ground a...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 31 2010 (TRI)

Shikhar Marketing Company and Others Vs. Gopal Das

Court : Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Lucknow

Bhanwar Singh, President: Oral: 1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Bahadur Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. O.P. Duvel, learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 2. Challenge has been made to the impugned judgment of February 8, 2005 passed by the Forum below in complaint case No. 411/1998 whereby the complaint of the respondent was allowed with a direction to the appellants to refund the amount of Rs. 15,000 along with interest @ 09% p.a. Rs. 2,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1,000 as litigation charges were also directed to be paid. As per the default clause interest @ 12% p.a. was payable if the payment of the aforesaid sums was not made within one month. 3. It was pleaded by the complainant that he had paid Rs. 15,000 as price of detergent cake machine along with mixer and motor. The appellant had supplied the main machine without accessories i.e. mixer, motor and dye set and also committed deficiency in service by not deputing an engineer to i...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 06 2001 (TRI)

Messrs Raj Enterprises Vs. Branch Manager, National Insurance Company ...

Court : Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Lucknow

D.D. BAHUGUNA, MEMBER D.D. Bahuguna, Member - Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 29-5-1997 passed by District Consumer Forum, Rae Bareili in Complaint Case No. 104/1996. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows. The complainant, M/s. Raj Enterprises through its partner Sri Subhash Bhargava of Industrial Estate, Sultanpur Road, Rae Bareili had taken an insurance policy from the opposite party No. 1, National Insurance Company Ltd. for a period from 15-12-1990 to 14-12-1991. The total sum assured was for Rs. 5, 75, 000/- which includes Rs. 25, 000/- for generator and Rs. 5, 50, 000/- for raw material, finished and semi-finished goods. On the night of 29-4-1991 a theft took place in the factory promises and the material worth Rs. 3, 00, 000/- was stolen. An F.I.R. of the incidence was lodged with the Mill Area police station, Rae Bareili on the next date. The opposite party insurance company, was also informed of the incidence on 30-4-1991. The complai...

Tag this Judgment!


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