|
|
| Court Fees prescribed to file a complaint | Compensation Demanded | Court Fee (Postal Order or Demand Draft) | Upto Rs.1,00,000/- | Rs.100/- | Above Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- | Rs. 200/-
| Above Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- | Rs. 400/-
| Above Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/- | Rs. 500/- | Above Rs.20,00,000/- to Rs.50,00,000/- | Rs. 2000/-
| | Above Rs.50,00,000/- to Rs. 1 crore | Rs. 4000/- | Above Rs. 1 crore | Rs. 5000/- |
| | Complaints to be filed in Courts (Jurisdiction) | If the cost of goods or service and compensation asked for is | Forum
| | Up to Rs. 20.00 lakhs | District Forum
| | More than Rs. 20.00 lakhs and up to Rs. 1 crore | State Commission
|
More than Rs. 1 crore | National Commission
|
| |
| Latest Judgments Shri Subrata Biswas vs. Shri Sunil Subhash Shah dated 2011-08-12
The complainant approached OP 3 in February 2002 with a view to availing of the servicea of the Institute of Foreign Academic Consultancy and Training in order to secure visa for migration to New Zealand. The consultancy charge for this purpose was fixed at Rs.80,000/- and the complainant paid Rs.60,000/- upfront. The balance fee was to be paid on receipt of the visa. In addition, the complainant paid the processing fee of New Zealand Dollar 1000, which was then equivalent to Rs.23,800/-, through the OP Institute, to the New Zealand Immigration Service by demand draft on 24.08.2002. Sometime in September 2003, the Immigration Policy of the New Zealand changed and, consequently, the complainant’s application became invalid. The OPs refunded 75% of the consultancy fees paid, i.e., Rs.45,000/- in accordance with the agreement. However, the visa processing fee paid by the complainant was not refunded to him though, according to the complainant, the OPs had received the refund from the Government of New Zealand, Immigration Service. Alleging deficiency in service on this ground, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik (in short, ‘the District Forum’). The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to pay jointly and severally Rs.23,800/- with interest @ 6% per annum from 17.10.2003 till realisation, Rs.1000/- towards compensation for mental torture and Rs.500/- towards cost to the complainant. It is this order that was set aside by the State Commission in appeal of the OPs, read more + |
| Shri. Manjit Singh vs. M/s. Luxmi Automobiles dated 2011-08-12
The petitioner was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (in short, ‘the District Forum’). He had purchased a Hero Honda CD – Deluxe motorcycle from the first respondent/opposite party (OP) on 09.05.2005. The motorcycle carried a warranty of two years or 30,000 kms running whichever so was earlier. It was the case of the complainant that the motorcycle developed defects from the very beginning which he pointed out to the Dealer (OP 1), but the latter failed to rectify them. When his complaints were not attended to, the complainant made written representation to OP 1 as well as OP 2 (manufacturer of the motorcycle) but to no avail. OP 1 even refused to provide the 6th free service for which the complainant had to pay. It was after a period of two years that the OPs replaced the defective chassis and cylinder of the motorcycle on 12.07.2005, but the remaining defects were not attended to though they were recorded in the complaint. Finally, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the OPs to remove the defects in the motorcycle and Rs.20,000/- as compensation, Rs.4000/- towards interest on the loan and cost read more + |
| BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. vs. Neeraj Kumar dated 2011-08-12
The facts of the case are that an inspection team of the petitioner’s visited the premises of the respondent/complainant on 26.10.2005 and found several irregularities, including broken plastic seal on the top of the meter body wire and broken hologram seal on the right hand side of the meter body, slow running of the meter by as much as 67.5%, insertion of two illegal resistances inside the meter body to manipulate the meter recordings of consumption of energy, etc. The spot inspection reports on the meter and the connected load were prepared and the signature of the respondent obtained. Show cause notice was also issued to the respondent directing him to file his reply by 27.11.2005. The respondent filed his reply to the notice on 17.11.2005. The Assessing Officer passed a speaking order making out a case of dishonest abstraction of energy (DAE) against the respondent and, in terms of the said order, the petitioner raised a supplementary bill for Rs. 31,371/- payable by the complainant by 16.12.2005. However, the complainant, instead of paying the bill, filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Delhi (hereafter, ‘the District Forum’). The petitioner, on the other hand, filed a criminal complaint on 08.03.2006 against the complainant under sections 135 and 138 read with sections 150 and 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 before |
| |
|