Friday,
January 4, 2002, Chandigarh, India
|
|
|
PCCTU convention on Jan 10 Ludhiana, January 3 Stating this in a press note, Prof K.B.S. Sodhi, president, Punjab and Chandigarh College Teachers Union (PCCTU), said besides participation of the teachers, principals, managements and non-teaching employees, leaders of various political parties, educationists and trade union leaders would take part in the convention. He said the decision was taken at a meeting chaired by the joint action committee president, Dr Ishwar Singh Doraha, here last evening. Professor Sodhi said students and parents would be invited and told about the “anti-higher education” policies of the government. He said on the same evening, a meeting of the committee would again be convened and dates of protest rallies would be announced. |
PAU college to honour alumni Ludhiana, January 3 Dr M.S. Tiwana, head of the association and Dean of the college, gave this information here today and said a technical symposium would also be held on the ‘Future of Punjab Agriculture’, where, implications of the WTO on Punjab agriculture would be discussed. He said delegations of different chapters of the association located in the USA, Canada and Australia had been invited to participate in the meet. Dr Tiwana said the Bishan Singh Samundri Medal would be given to an alumnus of the college for his achievements in the development of agriculture. He said the alumni of the college working in the PAU, the Punjab Government Departments of Agriculture, Horticulture and Animal Husbandry, who had received national or international awards this year, would be honoured. The alumni who had retired recently would also be honoured, he said. |
Trust directed to refund consumer Ludhiana, January 3 According to the complaint, the consumer was allotted plot 299-G of 100 square yards in ‘475 Acre Scheme’ known as Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, on February 28, 1985. The representative of the complainant, Mr S.S. Sarna, disclosed before the forum that he had deposited Rs 2,510 on March 22, 1985, for the said plot and rest of the payment was to be made in seven instalments. He further stated that he deposited four instalments on due dates, but amount of remaining three instalments of Rs 3,885 was paid on September 13, 1999. Mr Saran said he had deposited the total cost of the plot, paid upto September 13, 1999, except Rs 121, but when he approached the trust officials on October 17, 2000, to enquire about the balance amount due on his account, he was told that there was a balance of Rs 11,110. He further stated that according to the officials, the amount was due on account of interest for late payment of instalments and the sale deed would be executed only after the payment of the said amount. As such he deposited the said amount. After depositing the said amount, he was further told that Rs 445 was due, which included Rs 135 as enhancement. He also deposited this amount, he added. After that the sale deed was executed on January 31, 2001. Mr Sarna disclosed that even after the execution of sale deed and paying dues, he was asked to deposit Rs 9,000 on account of price enhancement (at the rate of 4,500 for 100 square yards) and interest at the rate of 20 per cent per annum since 1990. He also deposited the said amount. It was alleged that the said demand of Rs 9,000 was baseless and the amount had been wrongly recovered from the consumer. It was further disclosed that the trust charged Rs 500 as security and Rs 100 on account of agreement fee. Mr Sarna demanded the forum to direct the respondent to refund the amounts wrongly recovered from the consumer. The trust pleaded that the complainant failed to comply with terms and conditions of the allotment and did not make the payments of instalments as per schedule. Moreover, he did not execute the sale agreement within 30 days as the agreement was executed in October, 2000, while the allotment was made on February 28, 1985, the respondent stated. The respondent pointed out that the sale deed had been executed and the possession had also been delivered. The respondent disclosed that the amount charged from the complainant was due on his account and the demands were rightly raised. It demanded from the forum that the complaint was liable to be quashed as there was no deficiency in services on its part. The forum observed that the respondent had not rightly raised the demand of Rs 4,500 as price enhancement as no notice was given to consumer for intimation, which was necessary. Moreover Rs 4,500 was charged on account of interest at the rate of 20 per cent, which was also wrongly charged. The forum further stated that the opposite party had also charged Rs 500 on account of security twice, which was not right on its part. The forum also stated that as per terms and conditions of the contract, the penalty interest on due instalments could be charged only upto 18 per cent while the respondent had charged consumer for delay in payments at the rate of 20 per cent. The forum held that there was clear deficiency on the part of the respondent for wrongly charging the amounts from the consumer, which must be refunded with interest. |
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | In Spotlight | Chandigarh Tribune | Ludhiana Tribune 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 121 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |