Firm asked to pay Rs 20,000

Earlier in her complaint, Promila Anand had stated that the company had issued a bond scheme offering 23.42 per cent interest for a period of 17 months and 29 days. In response to this scheme, she purchased eight bonds for a sum of Rs 14,800 on September 4, 1996, which was to mature on March 3, 1998. The complainant added that in discharge of its liability, the company issued post dated cheque of the amount of Rs 20,000 but the cheque was dishonoured due to non-availability of funds in the company’s account.

Despite several attempts, the complainant failed to get the due maturity amount released and hence the complaint was lodged. The bench ordered the company to pay a compensation of Rs 1,000 besides releasing the due amount of Rs 20,000 to the complainant.

Plea dismissed
The appeal of Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) against the order of District Forum-I, whereby HUDA had been directed to refund Rs 18,000 along with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum to the complainant, was today disallowed by the State Consumer Commission.

Dismissing the appeal here, the bench held that "in the absence of proper evidence it cannot be said that the complaint instituted was bad for want of territorial jurisdiction. The appeal is hereby dismissed along with costs of Rs 300".

The earlier complaint was instituted by one Sneh Gupta, who said HUDA was withholding the first instalment of Rs 18,000 of the total amount of Rs 90,190 deposited by her for allotment and possession of a 209-sq-metre plot in Sector 23, Sonepat. She said HUDA, which had failed to deliver possession of the plot even after five-and-a-half years, could not withhold the instalment.

On hearing her complaint, District Forum-I had ordered the refund of Rs 18,000 along with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum.

Escorts Yamaha asked to replace engine
Partly allowing the appeal of Escorts Yamaha against the earlier order of the Distrcit Forum, whereby the forum had directed it to replace defective motorcycle of the consumer, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission here ordered the company to replace the engine assembly of the motorcycle or pay Rs 15,000 to the complainant.

The commission bench comprising president, Justice J. B. Garg, and members Col. P. K. Vasudev (retd) and Devinderjit Dhatt, also ordered the company to pay Rs 10,000 for causing inconvenience and harassment to the consumer.

Complainant Anil Kumar Vishwakarma had earlier lodged a complaint before District Forum-II, stating that ever since he had purchased the Yamaha RXG-make motorcycle, it was causing him trouble. The vehicle carried a six-month warranty card. After running about 1,800 km, a sound was detected and the piston kit was found to be defective. Though the kit was replaced thrice, the defect persisted.

He then lodged a complaint in the forum, which ordered replacement of the bike and payment of Rs 2,100 to the complainant.

The complainant had added that after the problem persisted he was convinced that the engine was defective and hence the demand for bike replacement.

The appeals were filed separately by dealers Classy Mobike and Escorts Yamaha. While the appeal of Classy Mobike was allowed, that of Escorts Yamaha was partly allowed, with directions to immediately replace engine assembly of the motorcycle and also pay Rs 10,000 as compensation for inconvenience caused to the consumer.

Tailor to pay for delay in stitching
A local tailor was directed here to pay a compensation of Rs 515 to a consumer for not stitching his shirt in time and further for causing inconvenience to him by way of his getting involved in litigation.

In the complaint, directed against S. B. Tailors, operating in Sector 40, Dinesh Bharadwaj stated that on May 27, 1998, he gave a piece of cloth to be stitched and the tailor promised delivery by June 10, 1998.

The complainant stated that he made several visits to his shop but to no avail. He also submitted an affidavit stating that he had given a pant and shirt to the opposite party and the same had to be delivered back on June 10, 1998. It was added that though the pant was delivered, the shirt was not, despite repeated visits.

After considering the contentions, District Forum-I bench, consisting of president H. C. Modi and members Shashi Kanta and R. K. Behl, held that the complainant was entitled to the cost of the cloth, which was Rs 350, along with Rs 65 paid by him as stitching charges. It was further stated that the complainant should get Rs 100 as compensation for harassment caused to him.