Back
KUMKUM RANI, B. S. MANRAL
Director, M/s Bajaj Capital Limited – Appellant
Versus
Girish Bhushan Goyal – Respondent
ORDER
Kumkum Rani, President.—This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 07.02.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 601 of 2014; Sh. Girish Bhushan Goyal and another Vs. The Company Secretary, Plethico Pharmaceuticals Limited and another, whereby the consumer complaint was allowed by the District Commission and the appellant & respondent No. 3, who were opposite parties before the District Commission, were directed to refund the invested amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 – complainants along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 – complainants, had invested an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in a fixed deposit scheme with respondent No. 3 – Invested Company through the appellant – Broker, on 24.06.2011 vide FD Receipt No. 7178. The maturity date of the FDR was 23.06.2014 and
Revisional Jurisdiction – Concurrent decisions of District Forum & State Commission cannot be set aside by this National Commission as it cannot go into re-appreciation of evidence.
“Complaint can be instituted only where all the opposite parties are actually and voluntarily residing.”
(1) Premium against Policy paid by Appellant’s son online, accepted by Respondent does not change the character of the Appellant/complainant as a consumer.(2) Premium paid online from anywhere does n....
Liability for non-refund of deposits – A financial institution or entity cannot escape liability for non-refund of deposits by merely denying the transaction or the relationship in its pleadings. Whe....
(1) Educational Institutions are not “Service Providers” – Educational institutions, while performing statutory or core educational functions (including matters of admission and fees), do not render ....
(1) Mere allegation that purchase of the property is for commercial purpose cannot be ground to reject the consumer complaint.(2) In the event a person entitled to seek additional special remedy prov....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
