Professional & Knowledgable Law Team

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

CBI files detailed chargesheet against former revenue official and a sarpanch


Chandigarh, January 9
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) today filed a detailed charge sheet at a district court here against former Punjab revenue official and a sarpanch of Fatehgarh Sahib in a graft case dating back to April, 2011.
The CBI filed the charge sheet against the duo for accepting a bribe of Rs 9 lakh. The accused were revenue official Narinder Singh and Panjol sarpanch Darbara Singh. The court deferred the hearing for January 21.
Past year, the CBI had laid a trap at Sector 43 and arrested the accused. According to it, they had demanded the bribe for executing a sale deed in favour of the complainant, a resident of Fatehgarh Sahib, who had purchased agricultural land at Panjol village. CBI officials maintained that the revenue official had threatened the complainant that in case of non-payment, an objection would be raised to the tehsildar concerned and the sale deed would not be executed.

Merchant Navy Officer Academy fined Rs 50,000


Chandigarh, January 9
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I slapped a fine of Rs 50,000 on the Swami Vivekanand University of Merchant Navy (now Merchant Navy Officer Academy) for its failure to provide onboard deck training to a resident of Mohali.
The district forum comprising president PD Goel and members Rajinder Singh Gill and Madanjit Kaur Sahota also directed the opposite party to refund Rs 3,15,000, besides Rs 10,000 as the cost of litigation.
The complainant, Arvind Kaur, submitted that after being allured by the advertisement regarding the deck cadet course (pre-sea training) by the opposite party, she approached them for getting her son, Mohit Arora admitted in the said course, culminating into the licence for continue discharge certificate, upon which placement of the candidate would be made on the ship.
She was to deposit Rs 3,15,000, out of which Rs 1,55,000 was for the pre-sea training and an amount of Rs 1,60,000 was to be deposited before the start of the course. She deposited Rs 1,55,000 and her son was issued various certificates regarding the training and the onboard training was to commence from November 4, 2009, but the same was not started. She approached the opposite party through her husband who asked her son to deposit the remaining fee of Rs 1,60,000.
She further alleged that her son was taken to Bangkok (Thailand) on March 12, 2010 on the assurance that the continue discharge certificate would be issued there. Before departing, a sum of Rs 1.60 lakh was also taken by the opposite party and her son was issued certificate to work onboard of Panamanian Ship for a period of three months and thereafter, received a letter through the opposite party from one Hailong Shipping and Investment Development Vietnam for the onboard training, starting from May 3, 2010.
According to the complainant, many commitments were made regarding the continue discharge certificate and licence to board, but no development took place and her son has to stay at Bangkok. Thereafter, he was taken to Cambodia where her son had to stay for one month and returned back on expiry of his visa.
According to the complainant, the certificates issued by the opposite party were fake and had no recognition for imparting the said training, besides having no authority to issue the said certificates. She requested the opposite party to refund Rs 3,15,000 deposited with them, but to no effect.
The counsel for the opposite party pleaded that on completion of the pre-sea training course, requisite certificates were issued to the candidate. Thereafter, they provided certificate to the candidate for joining the “onboard training”, without any delay. It has been pleaded that the complainant has failed to deposit Rs 1,60,000 for the onboard training of the candidate and only Rs 1,47,200 was paid on March 15, 2010, that, too, after the completion of the training and issuance of the transitory certificate in February, 2010.
It has further been pleaded that the complainant’s son returned to India without consulting the opposite party and failed to reach the company’s office by the stipulated date i.e. May 12, 2010. They further asserted that the institute of the opposite party is duly recognised and the certificates issued by them are genuine.

Pafex told to pay Rs 5,000 by Consumer Court

Chandigarh, January 9
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I slapped a fine of Rs 5,000 on Pafex (Prakash Air Freight Private Limted) for its failure to deliver a parcel.
The district forum comprising president PD Goel and members Rajinder Singh Gill and Madanjit Kaur Sahota has also directed the respondents to pay Rs 2,195 on account of the loss suffered by the complainant.
The complainant, Dilpreet Singh, submitted that he approached Brijesh Sareen, Shiv Shakti Stationery and Couriers at Panjab University (Opposite party no 2) for sending a parcel containing some clothes and shoes to his cousin at Jhansi. He showed his parcel to the opposite party no.2, who asked him to pack it properly, which he did accordingly and gave it to the opposite party No.2. He said after three days, he received the packet and found that one pair of shoes, costing Rs 2,195, was missing from the packet. His cousin went to the office of opposite party No.1 at Jhansi, but it told him to contact their Chandigarh office, from the where the courier was booked. When he approached the opposite party no.2 and asked him about the parcel, he replied that it was done in a hurry. He made irrelevant excuses and asked the complainant to talk to branch manager of the opposite party No.1 in Chandigarh. It is averred that he called the branch manager, who told him to meet the opposite party No.2 who offered only Rs 500 as compensation.
The counsel for the opposite party No.1 pleaded that the transaction in question is without any declaration of goods in respect of the goods claim, hence the complainant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. It is further pleaded that courier had been duly delivered and no item of the couriered goods of the complainant had been lost. At the time of taking delivery of the impugned shipment, the consignee pointed out no irregularities and admittedly the delivery slip was signed in token of receipt and acceptance of the shipment in good order. Furthermore, as per the terms and conditions of the consignment note, the liability of the opposite party No.1, if any, is limited to Rs 100 only.
Initially, the opposite party no 2 appeared in person and sought time to file reply/evidence but subsequently, did not appear and suffered ex-parte.
The forum observed that the non-appearance of opposite party no.2 as well as non-filing of reply, despite appearing on three dates of hearing and then suffering ex-parte order, shows that opposite party no.2 did not want to say anything in its defense or to contest the claim of the complainant and the allegations made by the complainant are true.