Himachal Pradesh Court March 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Manager, J and K Bank Private Limited Vs. Veena Kumari
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-29-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it, by respondent-Veena Kumari, has been allowed and a direction given to it (the appellant) to release the balance amount of loan, within thirty days of the passing of the impugned order and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost. 2. Respondent-Veena Kumari, filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that she had been sanctioned a loan of Rs.24.50 lacs for construction of house by the appellant and that out of the sanctioned loan amount, only a sum of Rs.16.00 lacs had been released and when after utilizing the aforesaid amount of Rs.16.00 lacs, she approached the appellant to release the remaining amount of money, she was informed that a sum of Rs.3.50 lacs, ...
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mimmi Devi
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 24.07.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it, by respondent-Mimmi Devi, has been allowed and a direction given to it (the appellant) to pay a sum of Rs.1,38,818/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on account of insurance money and also to pay Rs.5,000/-, as litigation expenses. 2. Respondent-Mimmi Devi, purchased a medi-claim policy from the appellant, insuring her own health, in March, 2006. Policy was renewed in March, 2007, for a further period of one year, on payment of requisite premium. When the policy was in force, respondent had some gynae problem. She visited Fortis Hospital at Mohali, where she was admitted on 29.01.2008 and operated upon for uterine prolapse. A sum of Rs.1,00,896/-, was spent on her treatment during the period, she remained admitted to F...
Canara Bank, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., Through Its Branch Manager V ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed by opposite party against the order dated 05.06.2012, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, in a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, instituted by respondent-Neeraj Kapoor. 2. Neeraj Kapoor-respondent, had taken home loan of Rs.4.00 lacs, from the appellant. Account Number was initially 875, which was changed to HL-1515 later-on. Respondent had been paying instalments of Rs.5,000/- for the liquidation of his liability, arising out of the home loan. He paid instalments for the months of May to September, 2010, but when statement of account was procured by him, it was noticed that entries of these instalments were not there. Also, he had deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 22.11.2006, but in the statement of account, which was supplied to him, no entry of this amount was available. 3. Respondent ser...
Hasina and Others Vs. Iffco-tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. and O ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Complainants have approached this Commission for directing the opposite parties No.1 to 3 to pay a compensation of Rs.25.00 lacs, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, from 14.01.2007, till the payment of aforesaid amount of money, besides seeking litigation expenses. 2. Complainant No.1-Hasina and her husband, Israr Khan, raised a loan of Rs.5.00 lacs, from opposite party No.3, i.e. Punjab National Bank, on 13.01.2005, to add two storeys to their existing house, standing on a site, in Mauja Khaneri, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla. They raised an additional loan of Rs.1.60 lacs, on 23.06.2005, from the same opposite party. House was mortgaged with opposite party No.3, by way of security. So the opposite party No.3 got the house insured with opposite parties No.1 and 2, in the sum of Rs.11.00 lacs, for the period from 03.02.2007 to 02.02.2019, through a policy, Annexure-E. In the policy, complainant No.1- Hasina and her late husban...
Shakuntla Devi Vs. Icici Bank, the Mall Shimla, H.P., Through Manager
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 05.10.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby her complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which she filed against the respondent, has been dismissed. 2. Admitted facts are that the respondent is a bank, rendering banking services to the public. Appellant/complainant approached the respondent/ bank to seek a loan. Her request was acceded to and she was granted a loan of Rs.1.00 lac, in the month of July, 2007. Loan was to be repaid, together with interest, in thirty-six monthly instalments. According to the appellant/complainant, fixed rate of instalment was Rs.3,800/- and that she had been paying instalments regularly. She alleged that in the month of August, 2008, when she visited the bank and enquired as to what amount of money was still payable by her, she was told that a sum of Rs.1,21,775/- was to be paid by her. 3. Appellant th...
Pradeep Dharmaik Vs. the National Insurance Company Ltd.
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-22-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Complainant owned a three storeyed building of A-class construction in village Shawala, Post Office Mahasu, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla. The building comprised of twenty three rooms, kitchen, bath room, toilets, etc., which was insured in the sum of Rs.60.00 lacs, with opposite party, for the period from 30.09.2010 to 29.09.2020. On 11.08.2012, when food was being cooked for the labourers, engaged by the complainant, in connection with grading and packing of his fruit crop, leakage of fuel gas took place, due to which fire broke out. The building having extensive wood work, fire spread rapidly and could not be controlled by the complainant, his labourers and the family members as also the neighbours. Fire brigade was called and it was with great difficulty that the fire could be extinguished. Report of the incident was lodged with the police. Opposite party was also apprised of the incident. Due to fire, the building was completely ...
Monsanto Holdings Private Limited and Another Vs. Hari Singh and Other ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-22-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. By this common order, we proceed to dispose of two appeals, filed by two different opposite parties in the same complaint, i.e. Consumer Complaint No.183 of 2013, filed by respondent No.1-Hari Singh on 30.10.2010 against Monsanto Holdings Private Limited (appellant in F.A. No.371 of 2013 and respondent No.2 in F.A. No.415 of 2013); Suri Enterprises (proforma respondent No.2 in F.A. No.371 of 2013) and respondent No.3 in a second appeal, i.e. F.A. No.415 of 2013 filed by Heminder Singh, who was impleaded as opposite party No.3. 2. Hari Singh, respondent/complainant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the appellants in two appeals and Suri Enterprises, The Mall, Solan, making the following allegations therein. Respondent/complainant jointly owned land, measuring 15-08-07 Hectares in Village Kotla, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. In the year 2010, he purchased cauliflower seed from Heminde...
Vikram Sethi and Another Vs. Rakesh Verma
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. By this common order, we proceed to dispose of three appeals, particulars whereof are given in the title hereof. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of the appeals may be noticed. Respondent-Rakesh Verma, is engaged in business of construction of flats and their sale. In the year 2006, he constructed a three-storeyed structure with basement meant for parking. In the three storeys, there were flats. Appellants, in all the three appeals, purchased one flat each 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? for different considerations, amounts varying from Rs. 7.00 lacs to Rs. 11.00 lacs. Separate sale deeds were executed, in which very categorically recited that the purchaser, viz. the appellants, shall have the right to park one car each, in the common parking. 3. Completion certificate in respect of the building was issued by the Municipal Corporation in December, 2007 and thereafter the appellants were put in pos...
State Bank of India, Mandi, Through Its Chief Manager Vs. Sansar Chand ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 03.10.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it (the appellant) and respondent No.2, Punjab National Bank by respondent No.1, has been allowed and a direction issued to the appellant to credit an amount of Rs.10,000/-, in the account of the respondent/ complainant, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of complaint, to the date of making of credit entry and also to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for harassment and another sum of Rs.3,000/-, on account of costs of the complaint. 2. Admitted facts are that respondent/ complainant-Sansar Chand Kapoor, had a savings bank account with the appellant and he was also having ATM card facility, linked with the said savings bank account. On 10.11.2011, respondent/ complainant-Sansar Chand Kapoor, came to know t...
The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Rup Lal and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-19-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been directed against the order dated 28.09.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by respondent No.1-Rup Lal against the present appellant and respondents No.2 and 3, has been allowed, only as against the present appellant, and a direction given to it (the appellant) to pay a sum of Rs.60,170/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on account of insurance money and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost. 2. Respondent No.1-Rup Lal, is a consumer of Liquefied Petroleum Gas, bottled by respondent No.3 and supplied by respondent No.2-Shri Anil Kumar Awasthi, Sole Proprietor of M/s. Maha Maya Gas Service. Respondent-Rup Lal filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »