A builder who neither executed a sale agreement with a customer for a flat nor returned the booking amount was told by a consumer court to return Rs 2.5 lakh booking amount with interest, pay a compensation and bear the litigation cost.

The Additional Pune District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum passed the order within five months of the complaint relying on documents filed by the complainant as the builder did not represent himself in court. The Forum directed Jagbhushan Arya of Shree Constructions to pay 2.5 lakh to Bhupendra Chhetri of Vimannagar.
Chhetri stated he booked a flat in a residential project being developed by Shree Constructions and on September 16, 2008, paid Rs 1.75 lakh as booking amount. A month later, he paid Rs 75,000 as per the builder’s demand for executing an agreement. “Despite repeated reminders, the builder failed to execute the agreement,” Chhetri said in his complaint.
After regular follow-ups, the builder refused to sell the flat to Chhetri and told him his booking amount will be returned soon. Two cheques of Rs 2.5 lakh given by the builder to refund the booking amount, on October 15, 2011 and November 10, 2011 bounced, said Chhetri.
more @ http://www.indianexpress.com/news/builder-told-to-return-booking-amount-pay-compensation/1009077/

Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd has been ordered by a consumer forum here to pay over Rs 4.11 lakh to a policy holder for first denying him the cashless hospitalisation facility and then avoiding to reimburse his expenses on treatment.

ORDER

Case # CC/840/10

Shri Anil Kumar Gupta

V.

M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd Dated: 03/09/2012 – New Delhi District Consumer Forum

The complainant had purchased a cashless mediclaim policy covering period from 16.6.2009 to 15.6.2010 from OP through his TPA. TPA was already exparte. The complainant had suddenly some chest pain on 10.10.2009 so he immediately contacted Heart Institute and he was advised to for hospitalization. He had a cashless mediclaim card and hospital authority immediately TPA for approval through mails/Fax on 13.10.2009 at 3:12 p.m. Simultaneously Dr. Praveen Kumar had also issued a medical history and disclosed in his letter that the complainant has no history of similar kind of episodes on 14.10.2009 at 3:58 p.m. but inspite of the above facts OP declined his cashless facility and the complainant had to bear himself to borrow money from various sources to save his life. The total amount complainant spent on hospitalization and operation was Rs.4,40,387/- and supportive documents are already on record. Further the complainant filed the claim and it was also repudiated on the ground of pre-existing without any evidence rather breach of contract law as doctor had already explained in his medical history that there is no past such history of diseases.
We have gone through the contents of OP para-4 in which OP has taken a plea that Escorts Hospital has been manipulated the history which clearly indicates the malafide intention and harassing attitude of OP to torcher the consumers arbitrarily without applying of mind and consciousness of justice. It has also been noticed that OP has deliberately avoided to make the payment to complainant from day one when he had contacted TPA for cashless facility which is totally unlawful Act for the consumer.
OP is directed to make the payment Rs.3,61,945/- as per bills including with 9% interest from the date of claim to till realization. We also award Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as harassment and litigation cost.
 

In a welcome decision, Consumer forum directs SGGSWU (Sri Guru Granth Sahib World University) to refund fees to a Patiala Student after deduction of Rs 1,000 only from Rs 36,000 paid for admission in July 2011, in terms of Punjab Govt’s notification referring to Directions of Ministry of Human Resource Development Department, which states –

“All institutions and universities shall maintain a waiting list of candidates. In case a candidate withdraws before the course begins, the waitlisted candidates should be given admission against the vacant seat.”

Though, the university took the plea that the seat remained vacant, as the request for refund was submitted after the last date for admission. But Forum after referring to the above notification and also to the fact that the complete fees was never paid by the complainant, which was Rs 42,500, i.e. no seat was ever alloted to the complainant. Hence he was entitled to the refund in terms of the said notification.
Read More @ http://www.hindustantimes.com/Punjab/Patiala/Consumer-forum-directs-SGGSWU-to-refund-fee/SP-Article1-926218.aspx