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.
M/S. Ajay Kumar Sood, Engineers and Contractors Vs. the Oriental Insur ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-18-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. This is a complainants appeal against the order dated 13.11.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby its complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which it filed against the respondent-The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, has been dismissed, on the ground that loss for which indemnification is claimed by the appellant/ complainant, is not covered under the policy, Annexure C-1 (also Annexure R-4). 2. Appellant is a Firm, engaged in the business of construction work. In the month of January, 2008, when the appellant was engaged in the work of constructing a tunnel, near Auckland House School, it got the project insured in the sum of Rs.4.00 crores with the respondent. The break-up of various items for which insurance was got done, is as follows:- (a)Contract worksRs.3.50 crores;(b)Surrounding propertyRs.40.00 lacs; and(c)Debris removalRs.10.00 lacs 3. According to the appel...
Jigyas Arora Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
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 his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondent, has though been allowed, yet the amount of money, which has been awarded on account of insurance claim, is below his claim. 2. Appellant owned a goods carriage, which was insured with the respondent in the sum of Rs.3,48,000/- for the period from 12.05.2010 to 11.05.2011. On 29.07.2010, vehicle met with an accident and was damaged. Intimation of accident was given to the respondent, with whom, it was insured. A surveyor deputed by respondent assessed the loss at Rs.1,74,500/-. Claim was, however, repudiated on the ground that at the time, when accident took place, there was one unauthorized passenger, on board the vehicle, and this amounted to violation of one of the terms and conditions of the policy. 3. A...
Bimal Walia, Government Contractor and Supplier Vs. Kamla Devi
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
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 him, by respondent-Kamla Devi, has been allowed and a direction given to him to pay a sum of Rs.1,64,400/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of deficiency in service and Rs.4,000/- on account of compensation for harassment and Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost. 2. Appellant owned a house site in Mandi town. She wanted to construct a house on that site, for which a plan had been got approved from Municipal Committee. Appellant, who is a Government Contractor, was approached by the respondent for the construction of house. An agreement was executed between the appellant and respondent on 03.04.2012. The said agreement is Annexure C-3. In terms of agreement, a single storeyed structure was to be raised. The structure was ...
Sheela Devi Vs. M/S. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. and ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 26.08.2013, whereby appellants complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which she filed against the respondent and also one Shri Suresh, the alleged authorized agent of the respondent, has been dismissed with the finding that the insurance cover note, on which the claim of the appellant was based, had been stolen and also it was printed on the cover note in bold letters that the same was valid only if the consideration was paid by cheque and not in cash, whereas the appellant alleged to have paid the premium, in cash. 2. Appellant owns a Maruti Alto car, registered as a taxi. Vehicle was insured with the respondent for a sum of Rs.1,70,000/-, for the period from 09.08.2007 to 08.08.2008, per insurance cover note dated 09.08.2007, Annexure A-1. Vehicle was stated to have met with an accident on 21st April, 2008...
Kanta Sharma Vs. Post Master Central (Pandt) Circle Shimla, H.P. and O ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 22.02.2013, 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 respondents, has been dismissed. 2. Appellant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the respondents, pleading following cause of action. Appellant had purchased Kisan Vikas Patras in the year 2000 and the total amount invested by her was to the tune of Rs.1.00 lac. On maturity of the Vikas Patras, after a period of six-and-a-half years, a sum of Rs.2.00 lacs was to be paid to her, in the month of September, 2006. Appellant lost the original Vikas Patras and approached respondent No.3, the Post Master of Post Office Jwalamukhi, from whom the certificates had been purchased, to issue duplicate Vikas Patras. She was required to complete certain formalities. She was also require...
M/S. Elder Farm Vs. H.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limi ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 17.08.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby its complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which it filed against the respondent, has been dismissed. 2. Respondent No.2, with a view to encouraging and promoting commercial horticulture, introduced a scheme, under which the persons covered by the scheme were to be given subsidy of 25% on the loan amount, in case they raised loans from certain named Agencies, for promotion of commercial horticulture. Appellant submitted a project sometime in the year 1999, that was approved by respondent No.2 and its functionaries, i.e. respondents No.3 and 4. Project was submitted to respondent No.1-H.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, which sanctioned a loan of Rs.35.00 lacs. A Sum of Rs.28.00 lacs, was released in favour of the appellant by respondents No.2 to 4. By...
M/S. Simla Automobiles Private Limited and Another Vs. Rakesh Kumar an ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. By this common order, we proceed to dispose of two appeals, i.e. F.A. No.281/2013, titled M/s. Simla Automobiles Private Limited versus Rakesh Kumar and Another and F.A. No.325/2013, titled Mahindra and Mahindra Limited versus Rakesh Kumar and Another, as both the appeals are directed against the same order, viz., order dated 06.09.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, passed in Consumer Complaint No.248/2012, filed by respondent/complainant-Rakesh Kumar against the appellants. 2. On 27.09.2012, respondent/complainant- Rakesh Kumar filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the appellants, M/s. Simla Automobiles Private Limited and M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, alleging that he had purchased Mahindra Xylo E-6 vehicle on 05.02.2010 for a consideration of Rs.7,55,000/- with extended warranty, for which an additional amount of Rs.10,999/- was paid. Vehicle was state...
Surinder Mohan Mahendru Vs. Pano Devi Patial and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Present revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.06.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur, Camp at Ghumarwin, passed in Execution Petition No.12 of 2003, titled Pano Devi versus Surinder Mohan. 2. A complaint was filed by respondent-Pano Devi Patial, sometime in the year 2002 against late Shri Tara Chand Mahendru, Smt. Kamla Dogra, Smt. Sudesh Dutt and Sarvpriya Forests India Limited. Shri Tara Chand Mahendru was proceeded against ex-parte. Complaint was allowed against Shri Tara Chand Mahendru, Smt. Sudesh Dutt and Sarvpriya Forests India Limited. Against Smt. Kamla Dogra, complaint was dismissed with the finding that she had ceased to be the Director of the Company before the deposit was made by respondent-Pano Devi. 3. When the order was not complied with, an application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was filed for the execution of order in December, 2003. Notice...
Jai Kumar and Another Vs. Parma Nand Saini
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.08.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by respondent-Parma Nand Saini against the present appellants, has been allowed and a direction given to them to pay a sum of Rs.71,609/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on account of freight charges and another sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses. 2. Respondent had filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that his truck had been hired by the appellants for carriage of their agricultural produce from Ner Chowk to Delhi, for which a sum of Rs.67,940/- was payable by way of freight and Rs.3,669/- on account of toll tax and unloading charges. He alleged that neither the freight nor the toll tax and unloading charges had been paid to him. With these all...
State Bank of India Vs. the Central Information Commission and Another
Court: Himachal Pradesh
Decided on: Mar-01-2014
Sanjay Karol, J. 1. The issue, which arises for consideration in these petitions, is as to whether names of the Reporting, First and Second Review/Accepting Authority, authors of the Annual Confidential Reports (for short ACRs) of respondent Santosh Kumar Kaushal (hereinafter referred to as the applicant), can be disclosed to him under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, or not. 2. Applicant, who is presently posted as Manager (OSD) in the State Bank of India, The Mall, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the Appropriate Authority), Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? sought following information vide application dated 17.8.2010 (Annexure P-1): œ(i) Whether cognizance was given to Self Appraisal submitted by the Reportee: Yes/No (ii) Name of Reporting Authority, Designation and Grade Scale: (iii) Name of Reviewing Authority/Accepting Authority, Designation and Grade Scale: (iv) Name of members of IInd Reviewing Authority/ Acc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›