Chennai Court December 2011 Judgments
Dr. Selvambal Rajkumar Niharika Hospital Pattaikoil Near, Salem Vs. S. ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-2011
(The Respondent as Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties, praying for a direction to pay compensation of Rs.15 lakhs and Rs.4 lakhs towards mental agony alongwith cost of Rs.5000/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.31.03.2010 in COP No.8/2009. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 05.12.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, perusing the material papers on record, lower court records, as well as the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following orderJ M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. This appeal aims to upset the order of the District Forum, Salem, in CC.No.8/2009 dt.31.3.2010, wherein a direction has been issued, against the opposite party, to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation, in addition to another sum of Rs.25000/- towards mental agony, with cost. 2. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Mda/Hsc/112 Rmtc Employees Housing Co-operative Welfare Society Rep. b ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-2011
(The complainants filed complaints before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction against the opposite parties. The District Forum allowed the complaints. Against the said order, these appeals are preferred by the 1st opposite party in each complaint, in the above appeals, praying to set aside the orders of the District Forum dt.27.11.2007 in O.P.Nos.36/2010, 37/2010, 38/2010, 39/2010, 40/2010, and 41/2010 These appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 29.11.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on either side, upon perusing the written arguments, documents, and lower court records, this commission made the following order:) COMMON ORDER M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1.The 1st opposite party, in CC.No.66/2004, 67/2004, 69/2004, 69/2004, 70/2004 and 14/2005 and 15/2005 on the file of DCDRF are the appellants in FA.No.39/10, 36/2010, 37/2010, 40/2010, 38/2010 and 41/2010 respectively. 2.Common facts necessary for disposal of all the...
Tag this Judgment!B. Parthiban Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office T.S.R ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-2011
(The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.1,70,850/- towards repairing of car. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.04.05.2010 in CC.No.10/2005. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 07.12.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The complainant having failed before the District Forum, in redressing his grievance, has come before us as appellant. 2. The complainant / appellant, being the owner of a car, bearing TN-49/X 0747, had insured the same with the opposite party, for the period 24.9.2003 to 23.9.2004, under the policy No.650701/31/03/6103954. During the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Branch Manager M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. A. Rathin ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-2011
(The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,26,635/- towards balance mediclaim, compensation and cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.28.09.2010 in CC.No.34/2010. This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 08.12.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The 2nd opposite party is the appellant. 2. The 1st respondent/ complainant sought the help of the District Forum to recover a sum of Rs.21,635/-, alongwith compensation of Rs.2 lakhs, alleging deficiency in service, against opposite parties. 3. The 2nd opposite party resisted the case, contending that a...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Agarwalâs Eye Hospital Vs. G. Nisha and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-2011
M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The second opposite party, who is the petitioner in CMP.6/2011 in C.C.81/2010 on the file of the District Forum, Krishnagiri, is the Revision Petitioner. 2. The first respondent in this Revision Petition, as complainant filed a case against the Revision Petitioner and three others, impleading them as opposite parties, claiming a sum of Rs.20 lakhs as compensation, based upon medical negligence as well as deficiency, on various grounds and the case is contested by the opposite parties. 3. In the said C.C. that is 81/2010, the second opposite party, filed a petition under Order 23 Rule 1(3) of CPC, to reject the complaint on the ground that the same kind of complaint was previously filed, taken on file as C.C.42/2009, which was not pressed and dismissed without obtaining, any liberty to file a fresh complaint and therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable, which was opposed by the complainant/first respondent contending that there is no bar from...
Tag this Judgment!A. Viswanathan Vs. J. Thirumalai Rajan and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-30-2011
(The 1st respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,06,875/- the total value of the pepper and also for compensation. The District Forum allowed the complaint against the opposite parties, against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.05.11.2009 in C.C.79/2006. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 01.12.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order) M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1. The second opposite party, who suffered an award, wherein, a direction has been issued against not only him, but also against another opposite party, to pay a sum of Rs.2,39,165/- with interest thereon along with costs of Rs.5,000/-, is the appellant. 2. The first respondent/...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Ramani Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Director V.Subram ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-29-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 24.11.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-) A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. Complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party claiming direction for payment of Rs.7,64,855/- and for costs for the delay in handing over of the flat on agreement. 3. Complainant entered in to a contract with the opposite party for the construction of flat and purchase for Rs.13,12,500/- on 9.2.96 with the condition to hand over the flat within the period of two years and the opposite party has not complied with the condition and delivered the flat only on 18.1.02 and thereby complainant was put in great hardship inconvenience and loss due to belated delivery of flat and he has also paid Rs.10,855/- towards municipal tax even before the possession of flat...
Tag this Judgment!The Branch Manager, Hdfc Limited Vs. P. Shanmuganathan and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-29-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 28.11.2011, upon hearing the arguments of appellant side and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-) A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant filed complaint against the opposite party claiming direction to refund the sum of Rs.7,298/- collected as excess amount and Rs.25,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as costs in all Rs.34,298/-. 3. The complainant availed housing loan for Rs.2,21,334/- on 23.1.2003 on paying Rs.2,391/- as EMI from his salary in order to settle the loan when demanded for outstanding letter from 1st opposite party which was given by stating that he has to pay Rs.2,07,075/- in all towards principal, interest and other charges. Hence the complainant paid by cheque Rs.2,07,000/- by obtaining loan from Diwan Housing Finance o...
Tag this Judgment!All India Human Rights and Disabled Protection Trust and Another Vs. t ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-29-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 28.11.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-) A.K. ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The unsuccessful complainants are the appellants. 2. The 2nd complainant booked a refill cylinder on 7.4.2008 with the opposite party as a consumer and in spite of registration for more than one month the refill cylinder was not supplied and whenever the distributing van found in the village when the complainant enquired about the supply of cylinder they used to give arrogant and evasive reply and on 8.5.2008 when she approached the vehicle for the same after persuasion of opposite party the cylinder was delivered reluctantly and by collecting Rs.15/- in excess and without issue of receipt and at the insistence of the complainant entry was made in the consumer book supplied by the opposite party. Hence th...
Tag this Judgment!The Branch Manager, Standard Chartered Bank, Rajaji Salai, Parrys Corn ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Dec-28-2011
(The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 24.11.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :-) A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The Complainant having savings bank account with the opposite parties bank provided with ATM card and while he was maintaining minimum balance of Rs.10,000/- in his account, on 30.1.05 when the complainant wanted to withdraw a sum of Rs.5,000/- through ATM centre at Royapettah and after inserting the card the machine displayed that amount was frozen and asked to contact the bank for further enquiry and on enquiry he was informed that his account was become dormant because of non operation of the same for more than two years. But actually and on 31.1.2005 he was asked to deposit Rs.10,000/- to activate the account and thereby his total balance was Rs.31,839/- agai...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »