National consumer disputes redressalcommission new delhi


ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 403 OF 2000

:)


Download 3.18 Mb.
Page15/66
Date09.11.2016
Size3.18 Mb.
1   ...   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   ...   66

 

ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 403 OF 2000

 

Kuwait Airways Corporation 309, Ansal Bhavan 16, K.G. Marg, New Delhi – 110001



                     …  Complainant

  Versus

1.  Rajagopal & Company, Advocates 39-A, Mittal Chambers Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 

2.  Mrs. Rekha Rajagopal, Advocate Partner, Rajagopal & Company 39-A, Mittal Chambers Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 

3.  Mr. Pradeep Rajagopal, Advocate Partner, Rajagopal & Company 39-A, Mittal Chambers Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021

…  Opp. Parties

  

BEFORE:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER


          HON’BLE DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER

For the Complainant               :  Mr. Jayant K. Mehta & Mr. Shyam Kumar, Advocates

For the Opp. Parties 1 & 2       :  Ms. Bina Madhavan, Advocate with Ms. Praseena Elizabeth Joseph & Ms. Vishaka, Advocates

 For Opp. Party No. 3               :   Mr. Prasanth P., Advocate



PRONOUNCED ON 4th JULY, 2014 

                                                O R D E R


JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      Kuwait  Airlines Corporation, the complainant, filed this complaint in this Commission  on 01.10.2000, against  their Advocates, namely,  Rajagopal & Co. and its two Advocate-Partners, namely,  Ms. Rekha  Rajagopal  and  Mr.  Pradeep Rajagopal, wherein it was alleged that OPs have  resorted  to unfair  trade practice and deceptive practice and demanded  refund  of  money allegedly collected as taxes and their professional fees.

 

2.      The relevant facts of this case are these.  The complainant operates its office from a portion of the building known as Chateau Windsor at 86, Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai.  The complainant took on lease, flat No.2 (right wing) on the first floor of this building vide a tenancy  agreement  dated 06.09.1967 from the erstwhile owners of the building.  On 15.02.1998, the Assistant Engineer (Buildings), A-Ward, Centralised  Ward  Offices  Building  under  Section 53 (1) of the Maharashtra  Regional & Town  Planning Act, 1966 (MR & TP Act) issued  a   notice   against    the   complainant   alleging   that   the


complainant,  without  taking  the permission,   necessary under  the

MR & TP Act, had changed the use of the land from residential to commercial.  A copy of  the  notice  was placed on record as Annexure-A. 

 

3.      Thereafter, the complainant  approached the OPs for legal advice and assistance in this matter.  Ms. Rekha Rajagopal advised the  complainant  that  this was  in gross  violation of  MR & TP Act and they are  also likely to receive  a notice from the Bombay Municipal Corporation.  They also advised the complainant to initiate and regularize  at  the earliest.  They  also advised the complainant that it would be wise to pay off the tax and penalty at the earliest in order to  avoid  any  further  levy of  penalties, demolition  and eviction.  They also advised  the complainant that it had an option to initiate legal proceedings and tried to obtain stay.  Mrs. Rekha Rajagopal, OP2, opined that  it  would  be a temporary relief  and  would involve lot of time and  expenditure.  She  further informed  that  the rate of tax would  be calculated on the rateable  value  tax from the preceeding year.  A copy of the letter dated 09.02.1999 has been placed  on  record  as Annexure-B.   The relevant  file was forwarded


to the OPs  vide letter dated 19.02.1999.   A  copy  of  the said  letter

has been placed on record as Annexure – C.   A meeting  was also held in Bombay  office between  the  officials  of  the complainant  and OP2.  A copy  of  the minutes of  the said  meeting  has been placed on record as Annexure – D.

 

4.      Vide letter dated 17.03.1999, the OPs further advised the complainant that the Corporation was to in violation of : (A) MR & TP Act, 1996; (B) Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (BMC Act) Section 167; and (C ) Maharashtra Tax on Residential Premises, 1974 and mentioned the period of violation as 1967-1999.


 

5.      The OPs demanded  the payment  of  Rs.33,00,000/-  towards tax and professional fees  for  the regularization.  The said amount was  paid  vide  letter dated 17.03.1999, a copy of which was placed on record as Annexure – E.  Annexure – E is a crucial document.  Its original was not produced because the same was not available.  However, the same is hereby reproduced  as under :-



Rajagopal & Company

Advocates

 

Pradeep Rajagopal           Chambers:39-A,Mittal Chambers



Mrs. Rekha Rajagopal    Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021

                                     Tel : 202 0303,Telefax:207 4771

                                    Email:rekharaj@bom4.vani.net.in

 

  March  17, 1999



To

Mr. Fahad Al-Ajmi


Lawyer – Legal Dept

Kuwait Airways Corporation

P.O Box 394, Safat – 13004, KUWAIT

 

Dear Sir,

           Re : Chateau Windsor Premises –

                   Regularisation from Residential to

                   Commercial premises.

 

I am in receipt of your letter through fax transmission, dated 17.03.1999 bearing Ref. DL/DX/99.

 

Violation of provisions of law :

1. Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966,       

   Sec. 63 (1)


2. Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, Sec. 167


3. Maharashtra Tax on Residential Premises, 1974.

 

Period of Violation – 1967 to 1999



The taxes payable  are computed on the basis of area of flat as recorded in the Municipal Register.

a) Process for regularization would

    incur payment of taxes           .. INR 30,00,000/-

   (to avoid demolition/eviction)

 

b) Professional fees inclusive of actuals .. INR  3,00,000/-

                                                           ------------------------

                                        TOTAL           INR 33,00,000/-                                                         ---------------------------          Rates of taxes shall be calculated on the basis of rateable  value for non-residential premises as per slab levied by State Government of Maharashtra for various  periods inclusive of 1967 to 1999.



Regards

Sd/-

Mrs.Rekha Rajagopal”.

 

6.      It  is  further  explained  that  during  the  period  25.03.1999  to 24.04.1999, a  total amount of  Rs.33,00,000/-  was  paid  to the OPs which  was  duly acknowledged  by  OP2  vide letter dated 11.03.2000, placed on record  as Annexure – H, which  runs  as follows :-



Rajagopal & Company

Advocates

 

Pradeep Rajagopal        Chambers : 39-A,Mittal Chambers


Mrs. Rekha Rajagopal  Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021

                                   Tel : 202 0303, Telefax : 207 4771

                                   Email : rekharaj@bom4.vani.net.in


March  11, 2000

To

Mr. Fahad Al-Ajmi

Lawyer – Legal Department

Kuwait Airways Corporation

P.O Box 394, Safat – 13004, KUWAIT

 

Dear Mr. Fahad,

 

           Re : Chateau Windsor



 

In pursuance of the telephonic conversation, I have to state that :-

1.  A sum of Rs. 33 lacs inclusive of Professional fees (Thirty three lacs) was received by my office  on behalf  of

the Corporation towards obtaining regularization of flat No.2, 1st Floor of Chateau Windsor premises from residential to commercial for the period 1967 to 1999 onwards.

2.  The receipts for all the moneys  received have been signed for by my office staff at various dates.

3. Kindly note that said premises was valued at Rs.1,30,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Lacs) on the said date. The Corporation would have incurred a penalty along with eviction totaling to about Rs.1,10,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Ten Lacs).

It was in this background that the case was handed over to my office. Your former Solicitors, Mulla & Mulla had even opined that it would not be possible for them to have obtained the said regularization. The same has already been explained vide my letter dated 17.03.1999.

Your office letter dated 19.02.1999 authorised me in regularizing the user of the said premises from Residential to Commercial.

I have already forwarded to you the BMC Inspection extract dated 15.05.1999 in this regard, wherein it is clearly stated that the above mentioned property, flat No.2, is used as an office.  The same has been regularized and


is now legally in order.

Thanking you,

  Sd/-



Mrs. REKHA RAJAGOPAL”.

 

7.      However, this  document of infinite significance,  is a  photocopy simplicitor  and  not  the main document.  No information  was  received by the complainant about the payment of the said amount.   On enquiry,  the OPs forwarded   two documents  to  the complainant. The first was the extract pertaining to the property  tax and the second extract was a letter dated 19.05.1999, written by OP2 to the Ward Officer wherein a request was made that the notice should be withdrawn.  The complainant  thought  that  the OPs were taking action.


 

8.      The complainant,  vide letters  dated 31.08.1999, 02.09.2000 and 10.11.1999 asked for original receipts for payment made to the authorities by  the OPs. However, all  those  letters went  unresponded.  Thereafter, the complainant received the above said letter dated 11.03.2000 and correspondence went on between the parties.  The OPs did not give the details of the taxes deposited by them.  The complainant approached the Ward Officer but came to know that till that date, neither the user had been restored nor any document authorizing  the commercial use had been submitted.   Copies of these letters were annexed as Annexure – L, collectively.    It is further averred  that the Assistant  Assessor & Collector of  the     A-ward was also asked to clarify the position but he could not.  No specific reply was received from the OPs. On 13.05.2002, OP2 admitted of having taken no steps towards regularization of user. 

 

9.      It is alleged that  even after the period of  fifteen months, the OPs actually had not rendered any service for which  they had already obtained professional remuneration in advance.  They could not  account  for  the said amount.   The  OP2  deliberately misinformed the complainant  that  a  notice  under  the BMC would be received shortly.  A study  of  these  acts and sections clearly indicate  that  they  are  independent  and  the valuation for property tax or the nature of tax paid, whether, residential or commercial, has no bearing on regularization of user.   All those regulations and sections  were  wrongly  interpreted  by  OP2. The justification regarding the penalty to the tune of  Rs. 1,10,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Ten Lacs ) along with eviction  based on valuation  of premises at Rs. 1,30,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Lacs) was a deliberate lie to suppress further queries from  the complainant. Copy of letter dated 15.05.2000, copy of representation to the Municipal   Commissioner, BMC,  copy  of  letter  from  the  landlord addressed  to  the BMC  were also  placed on record,  as Annexures Q, R and S, respectively.   Vide letter dated 12.08.2000, the complainant made a  demand  on  the OPs for refund of Rs.33,00,000/-. Copy of the said letter has been placed on record as Annexure T. 


 

10.    Ultimately,  this  complaint  was  filed  with  the  following  prayers :-



a) direct the opposite parties to return to the complainant an amount of INR 33 lacs being the total amount charged and received by the opposite parties from the complainant.

b) direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainant interest @ 24% on INR 33 lacs calculated from 25.03.1999 till the date of payment.

c) direct the opposite parties to pay the costs of these proceedings to the complainant ; and

d) pass any other or further orders as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances”,

 

11.    The OPs have denied all these allegations.  During the arguments, the  learned  counsel  for  the  complainant admitted that


he was unable to  produce the original documents.  Since the original documents have  not  seen  the light of the day, therefore, no value can be pinned with the photocopies/true copies, simpliciter.  Such like evidence is of frail character.  As a matter of fact, there is not a rag of evidence to implicate them in this matter. We do not have even a shred of  proof .  The complainant has failed to produce the receipts of the amount of Rs.33,00,000/-, allegedly  signed by the staff of OPs.  It is  difficult  to fathom as to why the amount was  sent in cash.  Kuwait  Airlines Corporation should have sent  the money through Cheque instead of sending the same  in cash.  No explanation  is  forthcoming. There is no other  evidence  which may go to bolster  the case of  the  complainant. 

 

12.    We have perused Annexure – H (quoted above) which purports to have been signed by Mrs. Rekha Rajagopal.  Mrs. Rekha Rajagopal has categorically denied  her  signatures  on this document.  The possibility of its being  manipulated cannot be ruled out.  No application was moved for leading secondary evidence.  Even if it is assumed that  all  the moneys were  received and signed by office staff of Mrs. Rekha Rajagopal, those receipts were withheld for the reasons best  known  to the complainant,  the production of the receipts would  have  gone  a long  way to elicit the  factual position of this case.   In their absence, the position does not begin to jell.  It would have gone a long way to animate life in this dead case.   In  order  to  prove  the case,  the  complainant should  have produced  solid  and unflappable evidence.   The complainant has made a vain attempt to make bricks  without  straw. 


 

13.    It must be mentioned here that the complainant has wasted fourteen years’ of  time of this Commission, on one pretext or the other.   The main reason for the delay is that the original documents were reported to be untraceable.  Due to lack of submission of  original documents,  the case  of  the  complainant goes  in a tizzy and the same is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.



..…………………………__(J._M._MALIK,_J)__PRESIDING_MEMBER__.…..…………………………__(DR._S._M._KANTIKAR)'>.…..…………………………

(J. M. MALIK, J)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

.…..…………………………



(DR. S. M. KANTIKAR)

MEMBER

dd/11


 

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI.

 REVISION PETITION NO.2370 OF 2012

(From the order dated 07.02.2012 in First Appeal No. 3775/2010 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka, Bangalore)

 

1.  Abdul Latheef Aged about 53 years S/o Late Bavunhi 


2.  Miss Ayeesha Shabeera Aged about 16 years 

3.  Master Muhammed Shahir Aged about 13 years

4.  Miss Saara Shameel Now aged about 10 years  

Petitioner No.2 to 4 are Minors represented By their natural Guardian Father, Petitioner No.-1

Permanent address at Nehru Nagar, Naricombu Village, Pane Mangalore-574231

…Petitioners       

 Versus

 1.    The Life Insurance Corporation of India Rep. By its Chairman, Claims Department, Central Office, Yoga Kshema, JB Marga, PB No. 19953, Mumbai-400 021 


2.    The Senior Divisional manager The Life Insurance Corporation of India Divisional Office, Jeevan Krishna, P. B. No. 8, Udupi-576101 

3.    The Branch Manager, LIC of India Branch Office, Bantwal P.O. Jodumarga-574219

                                                                                                            …Respondent

 

BEFORE: 

          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 

HON’BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER 

 

For the Petitioner        :    Mr. C. B. Gururaj, Advocate



          For the Respondent   :    Mr. Roopansh Purohit, Advocate

PRONOUNCED ON 04th JULY, 2014 

ORDER

PER DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER         

1.                The present Revision Petition has been filed before this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 07.02.2012 in Appeal No. 3775 of 2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ‘State Commission’). The State Commission dismissed the Appeal. The Appeal was filed against the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, ‘District Forum’) in Complaint No. 234/2009, whereby the complaint was also dismissed.

2.                The relevant facts in brief are that, on 28.03.2006, the deceased Zeenath obtained a Bima Gold Policy from the LIC of India (OPs) bearing No. 624377885 for Rs.2,00,000/-. She paid the 1st and 2nd premium. During the subsistence of the policy, she died on 12.11.2007 due to Carcinoma Larynx. The Petitioners/Complainants No.-1 to 4 are the nominees and beneficiaries under the said policy, and the Complainant No. 1 lodged a claim with the LIC of India (OP-2). The claim was repudiated by OP-2 stating that, the deceased had withheld material information regarding her health at the time of filling up the proposal form. Alleging that, repudiation of claim by the OPs was not correct which amounts to deficiency, the Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking direction against the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.2,00,000/-, the sum assured, along with interest @ 18% p.a.

3.                The District Forum dismissed the complaint. An appeal was filed by the complainants, which too, was dismissed by the State Commission.

4.                Against the impugned order of State Commission, this revision petition arose.

5.                We have heard the counsel for both the parties, perused the medical records on file. The counsel for OP contended that, while obtaining the policy, the policy holder suppressed the material facts, while answering all the questions in the proposal form. In fact, just 15 days’ prior to filling the proposal form, Smt Zeenath, the deceased, was suffering from Bipolar Mood Disorder for which she had consulted doctors in KMC Hospital Attavar, Mangalore, Venlakh Hospital Bangalore, Justice K. S. Hegde Charitable Hospital Deralakatte, Mangalore and further stated that, she was admitted to the KMC Hospital with a history of aggressiveness and agitation. The deceased was treated with appropriate medication and Counselling. It is argued that, had the life assured declared the particulars of treatment taken at the time of obtaining the policy, the OPs would not have issued the policy. Hence, the counsel for OP contended that the repudiation is just and valid, because material fact has been deliberately suppressed relating to her health at the time of filling her proposal form.

6.                The counsel for the petitioner argued that, Zeenath died due to Cancer, and there is no nexus between the Bipolar Mood Disorder and the cause of death. It is not a disorder; it is trivial in nature, which appears during pregnancy and abnormal menstruation, hence it is not a material fact, which need any disclosure. It is further contended that, the deceased, Zeenath, never required treatment for more than a week. There was no abnormal behaviour. The life assured was medically checked by the doctor of OP, and the proposal form was filled up at the instance of the LIC agent. Policy holder, Zeenath had a lower educational level and unable to understand the questionnaire in the proposal form. She never knew about the ailment of the carcinoma, it was the 1st time when she was informed by the doctors at KMC on 22.5.2006.  The present cause of death is no way having nexus with the earlier treatment taken by the policy holder Zeenath.

7.     We have perused the documents, the Hospital records from Venlakh   Hospital, KMC Hospital and find that the deceased life assured had consulted the doctor in a Psychiatric Department of KMC Hospital on 11.03.2006 and had taken treatment from 13.03.2006 to 16.03.2006 for Bipolar Mood Disorder (Mania) and thereafter took a policy on 28.03.2006. She had paid second premium and thereafter, within one year she died due to Carcinoma Larynx, which was also confirmed by Dr. Suresh Mankar. We have perused the proposal form, the question under item 11 was answered as “during the last years 5 years did you consult a Medical Practitioner for any ailment requiringtreatment for more than a week, the answer given was “No”. To the question at item no. 11(b) that have you ever been admitted to any hospital or nursing home for general check up, the answer is “No”.

8.         The next very important question which decides the fate of this Revision Petition is, “Whether, the non-disclosure of bipolar mood disorder was a material fact?  And whether it has any relevance with the Carcinoma Larynx which was the cause of death? We have referred the medical literature upon the bipolar mood disorder; accordingly it is seen commonly in women, during abnormal menstrual cycles or during pregnancy. Therefore, as such, it is a condition of mind and not to be called as disease. The Doctor’s CertificateExbs. at C-26, dated 05.12.2009 clarifies this matter. This certificate by the Doctor’s view is reproduced as follows:

Doctor Certificate- Highland Hospital Research & Diagnostic Centre

                                                                                                     Date: 05.12.09



Mrs. Zeenath w/o Abdul Latheef died on 12.11.2007 at 3.15 p.m. due to carcinoma of larynx and secondaries on the neck.

            She was treated for aggressiveness and irritability during 2004 & 2006 during her pregnancy and menstrual cycle. These symptoms can occur during stress conditions like pregnancy and menstrual cycle. She recovered well with the treatment.

            The above mentioned symptoms have no relations to carcinoma of Larynx.

            She died due to carcinoma of Larynx with secondaries and not due to behavioral disorders.”

9.                   Admittedly, the life assured took treatment just 15 days before taking the proposed policy. Even otherwise, this view of the OP is not supported by the answer given under the Item 11 (a) of the proposal form, the patient was admitted for only 3 days and not for more than a week. Also, the question in item 11 (b) the patient answered “No”, because the bipolar mood disorder was a frequent and repeated episode, which appears to be a trivial one. Therefore, it was not a material fact and not a fraudulent suppression. Therefore, the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satwant Kaur’s case is not applicable in this case.

10.               It will be unfortunate, if the insurance companies try to repudiate genuine death claims on such technical and flimsy grounds. Most of the innocent insured will be victims and the beneficiaries will be deprived of the fruits of life insurance. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the deceased, Zeenath, an illiterate woman, did not suppress any material fact with any fraudulent intention. There is no nexus at all between the bipolar mood disorder and the carcinoma of larynx. No doubt, the bipolar mood disorders may lead to suicidal tendencies and the death, but, it will never be a cause for any cancer in the human body. It is unfortunate that on one hand the LIC raises the voice of “Utmost good faith” but, in contrast, the faith will be lost while not settling the genuine claims for some or other reasons. It is the exploitation of the policy holders. The consumers are literally under fear or dilemma that, whether, after death, the beneficiaries ever certainly get any fruits from the LIC.….!!!.

11.               Therefore, we set aside the orders of both the Fora and allow this Revision Petition and direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of death of Smt. Zeenath, within 90 days, from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 18% p.a., till its realization. No order as to costs.

                                                    


..…………………………

(J. M. MALIK, J.)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

..…………………………



(S. M. KANTIKAR)

MEMBER

Mss/01


 

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI

 

REVISION PETITION NO. 4440 OF 2013

(Against order dated 04.04.2013 in First Appeal No. 1545/2001 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Maharashtra)

 

Satish Maniklalji Baheti C/o Baheti STD/PCO Choudhary Chowk, Cotton Market Road, Amravati, District Amravati (M.S.)



                                                                                                                   …Petitioner

Versus


Ku. Monika D/o Shantilal Takkar R/o Rekha Niwas, Bhaji Bazar, Amravati, District Amravati (M.S.)

                                                                                                                …Respondent

 

BEFORE

HON’BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER 

For the Petitioner                       :        Mr. Santosh M. Jain, Advocate 

For the Respondent/Caveator    :        In person

  

PRONOUNCED ON 04th JULY, 2014 



ORDER 

PER DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER 

1.                The present Revision Petition has been filed before this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 04.04.2013 in Appeal No. 1545 of 2001passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ‘State Commission’). The State Commission dismissed the appeal which was filed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, ‘District Forum’) in Complaint No. 149/1996, whereby it allowed the complaint.

2.      Brief facts of this case are: The Complainant had purchased a display monitor on 10.02.1995 for her STD/PCO shop at the cost of Rs.21,000/- from the Opposite Party, Mr. Satish Maniklalji Baheti, who is a dealer of DIGI Control Northern Pvt Limited. The STD/PCO was allotted under Educated Un-employed Scheme. After one month, the OP took the display monitor from the Complainant’s STD/PCO with a promise to return the display monitor to the Complainant, with same number. The OP informed the Complainant that the said monitor has been called by the Company. The OP kept the old monitor model CPD. The said old monitor was not working properly. Even after lapse of one year, with the repeated requests, the OP did not return the original monitor model TCBSI. The Complainant had spent Rs.4,000/- for repairing the old monitor, which also went out of order. Thus, on 17.04.1996 the Complainant served a registered notice to the OP to return the TCBSI monitor, with Rs.10,000/- towards the loss and Rs.5,000/- towards mental torture. But the legal notice was returned back with the remarks, “Not available, for 7 days”.

3.      Hence, the Complainant approached the District Forum, Amravati with the prayer directing OP to supply a brand new original TCBSI monitor or to pay Rs.21,000/- with the interest @ 24% p.a., Rs.25,000/- as damages with Rs.5,000/- for mental agony. The District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered the OP to refund Rs.21,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 03.06.1996 plus Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as costs.

4.      Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, an Appeal was filed in the State Commission by the Petitioner/OP which too, was dismissed. Hence, this Revision Petition.

5.      Heard arguments on behalf of both parties and perused the orders of both the fora below. The Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argued that the State Commission and District Forum have passed the orders without any evidence on the allegations of the Complainant.

6.      This case pertains to the year 1995, about 2 decades have passed, and the case is still being unnecessarily dragged on, to harass the Complainant. The observations of the District Forum clearly goes to show as follows:

That from this Forum has come to the conclusion that, the OP has intentionally avoided to remain present before the Forum in spite of several opportunities given to him to plead and considering this circumstantial evidence Forum has come to conclusion that, the OP has given promise to give new Monitor with Display of same number instead of new Monitor with display, because the said Monitor was demanded back by the company and till then in exchange gave old Monitor No. CPD to the Complainant to meet the requirement, this say of Complainant is accepted and OP is held guilty of adopting un-fair trade practice under section 1(1) (r) (vi) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and committed fraud, on this conclusion the Forum has reached.”

 

7.      Therefore, it is clear that the OP was shirking away from its responsibility by not accepting legal notices and also avoiding to change the monitor or refund the amount. It amounts to unfair trade practice. Both the Fora taken similar views. The facts cannot be agitated now again. The factual position stands proved. Hence, the Complainant deserves proper compensation because she is an educated unemployed lady who suffered due to unfair practices of OP. Both the Fora below have passed well considered order, which do not need any interference. Therefore, this Revision Petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs.


...........................

(DR. S. M. KANTIKAR) PRESIDING MEMBER

Mss/8


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 189 OF 2009

(From the order dated 27.01.2009 in Complaint No. 298 OF 2000 of the Delhi  State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi)

Space Overseas Pvt. Ltd., G-1314, Chitaranjan Park, (Basement), New Delhi – 110019

                                                ...  Appellant

  Versus


 Thai Airways International Limited, Cargo Terminal, Import II, block, Room No.6, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi

                                                           …. Respondent

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 384 OF 2009

(From the order dated 27.01.2009 in Complaint No. 298 OF 2000 of the Delhi  State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi)

M/s. Thai International Airways Ltd., Room No.6, Import II Block, Cargo Terminal, IGI Airport, New Delhi – 110037

                                                ...  Appellant

Versus

Space Overseas Pvt. Ltd., G-1314, Chitranjan Park (Basement), New Delhi – 110019



                                                   …. Respondent

 BEFORE:


HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER 

Appeared on 01.07.2014 at the time of arguments, 


For the Appellant in 189/2009 & for the respondent in 384/2009

 


 

Mr. Jayant Mehta, Advocate with Mr. Sukant Vikram, Advocate

 


For the Respondent in 189/2009 & for the

Appellant in 384/2009

 

 


 

Mr. M. Wadhwani, Advocate

 

 



PRONOUNCED ON : 04th JULY, 2014 




Share with your friends:
1   ...   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   ...   66
:)


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2019
send message

    Main page

:)