Latest news with #DCDRC
Time of India
2 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Builder scraps commercial complex in Ghaziabad, told to repay buyer Rs 6.5L booking fee
Ghaziabad: District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) has directed a real estate developer to pay Rs 6.5 lakh to a buyer who booked a shop in a commercial complex being developed by the firm in 2014 but later cancelled it when the project was scrapped. Airwil Developers Private Limited, a private builder, had proposed a commercial complex, Airwil Wow, in Mohan Nagar and had collected advance payments from buyers for shops. Complainant Suchitra Mahant, a Sahibabad resident, had purchased a shop in the complex and paid around Rs 13 lakh as booking amount on Feb 27, 2015. The total cost of the property was Rs 23.2 lakh. A complaint submitted before the consumer disputes redressal commission by Mahant stated that the project was subsequently scrapped by the builder. "They offered an alternative shop in other projects, but I preferred to withdraw and sought a full refund of the advance paid to the company," Mahant said, adding that she furnished all the original documents as demanded by the company to initiate the refund. The complainant told the forum that the developer returned Rs 6 lakh through various channels. It then issued two cheques of Rs 3.25 lakh each on Dec 5 and 20, 2015. "But both the cheques bounced. So, I served a demand notice to the developer, through my advocate, on Jan 25, 2017, but neither the money was refunded, nor did the firm respond to the demand notice," she told the forum. Mahant subsequently filed a petition in the consumer forum in April 2017. Airwil Developers contested the petition on two grounds. They argued that the DCDRC's jurisdiction was limited to cases involving goods or services valued up to Rs 20 lakh, whereas the shop's price was Rs 26.3 lakh. They also claimed the petition was time-barred as the deal had commenced in 2014 and the petition was moved in 2017. The DCDRC bench, comprising president Praveen Kumar Jain and members Shailja Sachan and RP Singh, noted the dispute centred on the non-refund of Rs 13 lakh advance payment and not the shop's total value, thus it fell within the forum's jurisdiction. They also noted that the two cheques that had bounced were issued in Dec 2015, and the complaint was filed in April 2017, which was within a two-year limitation period. In their order, dated May 24, the forum observed that "by not giving possession of the shop and failing to return the advance amount, the developers are guilty of deficiency in service". The forum directed Airwil developers to return the remaining advance amount of Rs 6,51,326 to the complainant with a simple annual interest calculated on the amount at a rate of 8% from the date when the application was filed to the date of final payment, which should be within 45 days of the order. The commission has also asked the realtor to pay Rs 5,000 as litigation costs and for mental agony caused to the customer.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Health
- Time of India
Ghaziabad doctor, insurance firm told to pay Rs 20,000 each to patient for wrong report
Ghaziabad: District consumer disputes redressal commission (DCDRC) has directed a doctor and her insurer — in this case New India Assurance Company — to pay Rs 20,000 each to a patient for issuing a medical report with errors that was rejected by her treating doctor, an orthopedic surgeon. Dr Puja Garg of Ajanta Heart Care and Diagnostics was found guilty, because Anju Lata Rana was handed over an X-ray report with errors while filling up the description of the patient. Both parties — Garg and New India Assurance Company — have been directed to make the payment within 45 days of the judgment pronounced on May 27. Garg was covered under a professional indemnity policy issued by New India Assurance Co Limited. The indemnity insurance is a type of liability insurance that protects professionals (here a doctor) from financial losses and legal costs arising from professional negligence, errors or omissions during their practice. Having heard both sides, DCDRC president Praveen Kumar Jain and member Shailja Sachan said Garg was "found guilty of deficiency in service", as the mistakes in every detail of the patient cannot be overlooked as mere typographical errors. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Banheiro escorregadio? Barra de apoio vira febre no Brasil Evite quedas e escorregões Saiba Mais Undo The forum directed the insurer to bear the cost of Rs 20,000 charged on the doctor for deficiency of service. In addition, the erring doctor was asked to pay Rs 20,000 as compensation for litigation costs and the mental agony caused to the patient. "The patient, Anju Lata Rana, was described as male instead of female, her age was entered as 26 years instead of 64, the date of reference was mentioned as Jan 1, 2016, instead of April 20, 2018, and the name of the referring doctor was mentioned as Anurag Singhal instead of Anil Rathi," the applicant informed the forum with copies of relevant documents to claim deficiency in service on the part of the diagnostic centre, particularly the doctor. Rana also filed a complaint against the insurer (Meerut branch). The forum agreed that since Dr Garg was covered under an indemnity policy, the insurer is duty-bound to bear the cost of Rs 20,000 charged on the doctor for deficiency of service. "In addition, Dr Garg should pay Rs 20,000 to the patient as the cost of litigation and mental agony caused to the patient," the forum ordered.
Time of India
25-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Consumer forum rejects ‘old house' defence, asks insurer to pay full claim
Ghaziabad: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) has asked SBI General Insurance to pay the full assessed compensation of around Rs 1.1 lakh to a policyholder whose house was damaged in a storm in 2021. The forum rejected the insurer's attempt to slash the compensation amount by 73% on grounds that the property was "old and dilapidated". Gyan Prakash Saxena, who is a resident of the Govindpuram area, had sought compensation from SBI General for his Baghpat house that suffered considerable damage in a storm. Saxena had obtained two insurance policies, with a coverage of Rs 10 lakh and Rs 9 lakh, respectively, as part of his home loan agreement with SBI. The incident occurred on May 28, 2021, when uprooted mulberry and mango trees crashed onto Saxena's house after a severe storm, causing substantial damage to the walls and creating cracks on the floor. When Saxena approached the insurance company, their IRDA-authorised surveyor allegedly demanded a bribe to process the claim. When he refused, the company significantly reduced the compensation, citing the property's age as justification, Saxena claimed before the commission. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Entrevista exclusiva: a verdade sobre o magnésio que ninguém te contou AlwaysFit Undo Although the insurance company acknowledged the policy coverage of Rs 7.8 lakh — valid till Nov 2027 — it insisted on applying a 73.6% deduction to the assessed damage worth Rs 1,08,275, offering only Rs 28,585 as compensation. During the course of the hearing, commission president Praveen Kumar Jain and member Shailja Sachan observed that the insurance company should have factored in the property's age and condition while issuing the policy initially. The forum ordered the insurer's Delhi and Mumbai offices to pay the full assessed amount of Rs 1,08,275 — along with Rs 5,000 for litigation costs and mental agony — within 45 days. While the consumer forum dismissed teh allegations against the surveyor-cum-assessor, maintaining their neutral role, the verdict set a crucial precedent for insurance claims involving older properties.
Mint
23-05-2025
- Business
- Mint
Restaurant not obliged to serve gravy with parotta and beef fry: Kerala Consumer Court
A district consumer disputes redressal forum (DCDRC) in Kerala recently dismissed a complaint filed by a consumer who alleged that a restaurant failed to serve free gravy along with beef fry and porotta. District forum Ernakulam President DB Binu and members Ramachandran V and Sreevidhia TN observed that there was no obligation on the restaurant to provide gravy. Thus, the court said, there was no deficiency in service by the restaurant under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. "In the instant case, there was no contractual obligation-express or implied-on the part of the Opposite Party to provide gravy. Therefore, the non-providing of gravy of the time of supplying porotta and beef cannot be considered as a deficiency in service from the part of opposite party No.1 and 2, and hence no enforceable consumer relationship arises in this respect," the consumer court ruling on 19 May said as reported by legal news website Bar and Bench. The incident took place in November 2024 when the complainant and a friend dined at The Persian Table restuarant and requested gravy with their order. However, the owner declined, stating that gravy was not served as a complimentary item. The customer, Shibu S Vayalakath, a journalist, complained to the Kunnathunadu Taluk supply officer. An inquiry was then conducted by both the Supply officer and the Food Safety officer, who confirmed that the restaurant did not have a policy of providing free gravy. There was no contractual obligation... on the part of the Opposite Party to provide gravy. The matter was eventually taken to the Consumer Court, which ruled that the complaint was not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
News18
23-05-2025
- News18
'No Legal Obligation': Kerala Consumer Court Dismisses Complaint For Gravy With Porotta
Last Updated: The Ernakulam consumer court observed that the complaint doesn't raise any grievance about the quality, quantity, or safety standard of the food the complainant paid for. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Ernakulam, recently dismissed a complaint filed by a journalist against a restaurant for not giving gravy with porotta and beef fry. The journalist, in the complaint, mentioned that the absence of gravy made the food dry and uncomfortable to eat. According to her complaint, on requesting gravy from the restaurant, the waiter, manager, and owner of the shop clarified, citing the policy that the restaurant does not provide gravy with dry food items. According to Live Law, the complaint was filed under S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant sought compensation of Rs 1,00,000 for mental agony and Rs 10,000 for legal costs. The complainant alleged the restaurant policy to be unfair, exploitative, and restrictive trade practice and cited deficiency of service under Section 2(11) of the Act. Section 2(11) defines 'deficiency" as any fault, imperfection, or shortcoming in the quality or manner of performance of a service, including negligence or withholding of relevant information. The journalist also cited mental agony caused by being served food without its essential components, invoking Section 2(22) and Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, along with provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, as per Live Law. Meanwhile, the consumer court observed that the complaint doesn't raise any grievance about the quality, quantity, or safety standard of the food the complainant paid for. The court observed that there was no enforceable consumer relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties, and so, no express or implied contractual obligation to provide gravy. It held that the essential prerequisite of a transactional relationship was not fulfilled, rendering the complaint non-maintainable. Also, in the absence of any evidence of misrepresentation, the restaurant's policy could not be construed as a deficiency in service, as no legal or contractual obligation had been established. First Published: May 23, 2025, 14:20 IST
