Scdrc Court January 2014 Judgments
Pradeep Kumar and Others Vs. T.V. Sudhakaran and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President Both these appeals arise out of a common order in CC.28/09 and CC.29/09 dated, December 19, 2012 of CDRF, Kasaragod. As both these appeals arise out a common order these appeals are disposed of by a common judgment. 2. In both these appeals, opposite parties 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17 and 18 are the appellants. Appeal No.276/13 is directed against order in CC.28/09 and Appeal.277/13 is directed against the order in CC.29/09. First respondent in both these appeals are the complainant. Respondents 2 to 8 are the other opposite parties before the Forum. 3. The case of the 1st respondent/complainant in both these cases and as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum in brief is this:- He joined in a chitty conducted by opposite parties 1 to 15. Total chitty amount of maturity was Rs.1,05,000/- in each case. He joined in the chitty on June 2006 and paid 10 monthly instalments of Rs.5000/- each totaling to Rs.50,000/- in both these chitties. Subsequently the c...
Tag this Judgment!C.L. Stanly Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
V.V. Jose :Member This appeal is filed against the order in O.P. No.205/2004 dated 21.03.2005 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complainant in the above OP is the appellant here. The facts of the OP is brief in as follows. 2. The complainant had obtained a medi claim policy from the opposite parties for Rs.2,00,000/- from 09.07.02 to 08.07.03 and the policy was renewed from 09.07.03 to 08.07.04. On 19.06.03 the complainant availed treatment from Lakeshore hospital. That was for symptoms of renal decease and was discharged on 15.07.2003. The opposite party repudiated the claim submitted by the complainant for Rs.87348.25/- . According to the complainant, it is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint for directing the opposite party to reimburse the medical expenses and pay costs. 3. The opposite party filed its version contending that the said policy was taken for the complainant by his brother by fraud and suppression of material facts for th...
Tag this Judgment!Lancohills Technology Park Pvt Ltd., Rep. by Its Director S. Venkata R ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite party is the appellant. The averments of the complaint are that the respondent booked a flat No.6 LH 2704, Tower No. 6, floor 27 and flat 4 in Lanco Hills in Manikonda. The respondent paid a booking advance of Rs.5,00,000/- and the balance amount agreed to be paid in installments depending upon progress of the work. The appellant agreed to hand over the flat by July 2011. The respondent found that there was no progress of work of towers 6 and 7 in phase II and as such he stopped payment of the installments. The respondent requested the appellant to return the advance amount. 2. The appellant informed him that the company is not obliged to pay any amount, however as a special case it had agreed to refund the amount on sale of the flat. During May 2012 the respondent came to know that the flat was sold at higher rate. The respondent approached the appellant and requested them to return the amount, and the appellant did not pay...
Tag this Judgment!Himmatrao Zulal Suryawanshi and Another Vs. Vijay Pralhad Patil and An ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
Uma S. Bora, Member: 1. Dr.Yograj Himmatrao Suryawanshi and Himmatrao Zulal Suryawanshi appellants herein/original complainants preferred these appeals against the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum Dhule on 18.1.2010 while dismissing consumer complaint Nos.232/2008 and 233/2008. Complainant Himmatrao is father of complainant Dr.Yograj Suryawanshi. As both these appeals are related to common subject matter we are therefore decided to dispose of these appeals by common judgment and order. 2. The facts giving rise to these appeals are as that:- Complainant Himmatrao purchased apartment No.5 in Kokil Apartment situated on plot No.14 in Mayur Colony, Dhule. Said flat was purchased on 28.3.2002 by executing the sale deed. Dr.Yograj purchased flat No.1/B situated in Kokil Apartment on 27.3.2001 by executing sale deed. It is alleged by the complainants that after taking the possession complainants found many defects in the construction of the flats. Therefore they approached...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Antriksh Engineers Construction Corporation Vs. Ganesh Kumar and ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This revision petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the order dated 17.04.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 105 of 2013, whereby the District Forum has restrained the revisionist from entering into agreement with any person in regard to the land and property situated at Antriksh NRI City, Haridwar and also from selling the same. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that in the month of October, 2012, the complainant met the opposite party No. 1 “ Sh. S.K. Batra, so-called Manager of Sidcul, Haridwar, who introduced himself as the Manager of Sidcul, Haridwar and stated that they are developing a residential colony and told that the value of the land is Rs. 1,100/- per sq. ft. and that if the complainant wishes to purchase the land, he has to deposit 25% amount for booking of the land. Thereafter, after consultatio...
Tag this Judgment!L. Charles Vs. A.R. Devendran
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
J. Jayaram, Judicial Member This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai [North] in C.C.82/2008, dated 01-08-2011, dismissing the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Singer Fashion Sewing Machine from the opposite party for Rs.8,100/- on 22-3-2007. Right from the day of purchase, the sewing machine developed certain problems due to the inherent defects in the machine. He brought it to the knowledge of the opposite party and their mechanic attended to the repair works; but even then certain defects could not be rectified though the complainant approached the opposite party several times. The defects are inherent manufacturing defects in nature. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint praying for direction to the opposite party to pay compensation under several heads. 3. According to the opposite party, the complainant was satisfied ...
Tag this Judgment!V. Subramanyan and Others Vs. H.V. Ramachandra and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 in CC.75/10 on the file of CDRF, Kasaragod challenging the order of the Forum dated, January 30, 2013 directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,29,000/- with interest and cost of Rs.7000/- being the chitty amount paid by the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:- Complainant joined 2 chitties conducted by the opposite parties 1 to 13. In one chitty he paid Rs.2,59,000/- and in another chitty he paid Rs.70,000/-. The opposite parties did not repay that amount. Therefore the complainant filed a complaint claiming that amount. 3. The first opposite party is Puthukkal Sree Vainingat Inswarante Kshethra Committee represented by its President. The second opposite party is Mr.C.V.Krishnan the treasurer of the Committee and third opposite party is Sri.Balachandran, the Secretary of the Committe...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. M.G. Saramma (Sara Job)
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
K. Chandradas Nadar : Judicial Member Appellant was the opposite party in CC.No.157/2009 in the CDRF, Alappuzha. The respondent / complainant is the widow of Sri.C.P.Job, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 15.12.2007. It is alleged in the complaint that deceased Job was holding Janatha Personal Accident Policy from the opposite party by purchasing Dollars India Card No.190265. The sum assured in the policy is Rs.2 lakhs. The complainant is the nominee of this policy. The master policy agreement between the parties is valid for 10 years from 10.05.99 to 09.05.2009. Since the policy covers death due to accident only, the complainant is entitled to recover the insured amount. After the death of Mr.Job, the complainant approached the opposite party. But her claim was repudiated. The complainant asserted that deceased Job became the card holder of Dollars India Ltd only on the attraction of the insurance policy. The opposite party failed to pay the sum assured without any valid reason....
Tag this Judgment!The Branch Manager, Lic of India Vs. T.P. Jagadeesan
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the opposite party, LIC of India, Thrissur Branch in OP.127/05 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur challenging the order of the Forum dated, June 15, 2012 directing the appellant to pay the disability benefit under Ext.R3 policy with a compensation of Rs.5000/- and a cost of Rs.500/-. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainant is a holder of two policies having Nos.772907395 and 772907378. In one policy the sum assured is Rs.40,000/- and in another policy the benefit is Rs.50,000/-. In an accident that happened on September 22, 2001 the left hand of the complainant was amputated. The complainant claimed the disability benefit under the policy. But the opposite party repudiated the claim. Therefore the complainant filed the complaint claiming that amount. 3. The opposite party is LIC of India represented by its Manager, Thrissur branch. He in his version contended thus before...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Sungro Seeds Ltd. Vs. Mohansingh Papasing Thakur and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by the original opponent No. 2 against the judgment and order dated 11/12/2007 passed by the Dist. Consumer Forum, Nanded whereby the complaint is partly allowed directing appellant to pay compensation. 2. Respondent No. 1 is the original complainant whereas respondent No. 2 is the original opponent No. 1 who is the dealer of the seeds manufactured by the appellant seed company. For better understanding the appellant is hereinafter referred as opponent œSeed Company? whereas the respondent No. 1 as the œComplainant? and respondent No. 2 as the œopponent dealer?. 3. It is the case of the complainant that he is a farmer having land G.No. 117 of village Navandi Tq.Naigaon (Khurd) Dist. Nanded. That, on 20/09/2006 the complainant purchased carrot seed of the variety S-404 having batch No. URA600133 and the quantity of 40 pockets each containing 50 gm from the opponent dealer as manufactured by the opponent seed company. Tha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »