Scdrc Court January 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.
Ashish Automobiles and Another Vs. Lalit Kumar Singh and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-25-2014
Oral (Order) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.06.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.23/2013, whereby the complaint of the appellant/complainant, has been partly allowed. 2. The appellants/O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 have preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 17.06.2013, passed by the District Forum and also filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard arguments of Shri Barun Chakrabotry, learned counsel for appellants on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay and have also perused the record of the District Forum. 4. In Revision Petition No.1616 of 2011 - National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shri P. Rangaswamy and anr., decided on 11.11.2013, Hon'ble National Commission held thus : "8. In Ram Lal and others Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 19...
Principal Swami Parmanand Para-medical and Gnm School of Nursing Chak ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
(Order) Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The appellants/opposite parties (hereinafter called œthe opposite parties?) have filed the present appeal against the order dated 4.9.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.83 dated 24.2.2009 vide which the complaint was allowed with the direction to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 62,900/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 24.2.2009 till realization. 2. The complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called œthe complainant?) against the opposite parties on the allegations that she deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on 7.7.2008 as security with the opposite parties to give training in English within two months and thereafter, test will be conducted and in case the complainant clears the test, she will be eligibl...
Shivam Motors Private Limited and Another Vs. Vashista Tiwari and Anot ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Oral (Order) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.01.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.107/2010, whereby the complaint of the respondent No.1 / complainant, has been allowed. 2. The appellants/O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 have preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 07.01.2013 passed by the District Forum and also filed application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for appellants on the application filed for condonation of delay and have also perused the record of the District Forum. 4. In Revision Petition No.1616 of 2011 - National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shri P. Rangaswamy and anr., decided on 11.11.2013, Hon'ble National Commission held thus : "8. In Ram Lal and others Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed :- It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even aft...
Sohan Singh Bansal Vs. Ramgarhia Institute of Engineering and Technolo ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
(Order) Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The appellant/complainant (hereinafter called œthe complainant?) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 17.3.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.150 dated 15.10.2008 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties on the allegations that Mr. Gagandeep Singh son of the complainant is student of 7th Semester in Computer Science, Engineering Degree with the respondents/opposite parties(hereinafter called the Ops?). He had passed three years Diploma in Information Technology from SBCMS Ploytechnic College, Attalgarh-Mukerian, Distt. Hoshiarpur in May, 2006 and after that he joined with the Opsfor degree in Computer Science and got admission in the 3rd Semester and had deposited Rs. 1,80,000/- approximately inclu...
Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Divisional Manager and ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This is insurers appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 20.09.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 30 of 2010. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellants “ opposite parties to revive the insurance policy of the respondent “ complainant after receiving the amount of premium from him and also to pay damages of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant had purchased a Jeevan Anand (with profits) (with accident benefit) policy from opposite party No. 2 “ Life Insurance Corporation of India, 200, Civil Lines, Roorkee for assured sum on 1,00,000/- on 28.03.2003. The said policy carried yearly premium of Rs.9,002/-. The complainant could not deposit the premium of the said policy for the year 2008, on account whereof, the policy in question got lapsed. It...
Medico Distributor a Proprietorship Firm Represented by Its Proprietor ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Debasis Bhattacharya, Member: This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.08.2012 passed in Case No. 36A/2010 by the Ld. District Forum, Unit-II Kolkata. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum has dismissed the said complaint case without cost. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the Complainant thereof has preferred this appeal. By the petition of complaint, it has been made out that it is proprietorship firm. Proprietor, Sukdeb Mustafi, a dealer of medicine, and for smooth running of the business, he obtained cash credit facility from the OP No. 4 for an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) by hypothecation of stock of business , and also obtained one insurance policy from the OP National Insurance Co. Ltd being no. 150/07/48/04/980-1085 for the period from 21.03.2005 to 20.03.2006 and the policy risk covered was stocks, furniture and fixtures to the extent of Rs. 8,00,000/- ( Rupees eight lakhs).During the policy period, an incident of dacoity...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Urmila and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Oral (Order) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.06.2012, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.307/2009, whereby the complaint of the respondent No.1/ complainant, has been allowed. 2. The appellant/O.P.No.1 has preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 07.06.2012 passed by the District Forum and also filed application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for both the parties on the application for condonation of delay and have also perused the record of the District Forum. 4. In Revision Petition No.1616 of 2011 - National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shri P. Rangaswamy and anr, decided on 11.11.2013, Hon'ble National Commission held thus : "8. In Ram Lal and others Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed :- It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause...
Punjab State Electricity Board, Through Its Chairman and Another Vs. H ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 5.3.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which the complaint of the respondent/complainant was allowed and the impugned demand raised by the opposite parties was quashed. They were directed to refund Rs.8,253/- already deposited by the complainant in terms of the order dated 6.10.2008, alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till realisation. They were further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- on account of physical harassment, mental agony on account of deficiency in service besides Rs.1,000/- as costs of the complaint. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant was using an electric connection, bearing account No.JA17/526, which was running in the name of his father, Resham Singh, who had since died and the complainant was using the same being beneficiary and legal heir. He ...
Jagdish Bankelal Agrawal Vs. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Complainant Shri.Jagdish Agrawal by this appeal challenged the judgment and order dated 16.3.2012 passed by District Consumer Forum Aurangabad declining his claim for compensation and amount of interest only. (For the sake of brevity appellant is herein after referred as complainant and respondents as opponents) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- Opponent No.1 Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. is a company. Opponent No.2 is its Managing Director and opponent No.3 is its Manager, whereas opponent No.4 as agent of opponent No.1 to 3. 3. According to the complainant in the year 2007 opponent No.3 and 4 contacted him and convinced him for obtaining policy of Kotak Unit Linked Retirement Income Plan. Complainant was told by opponent No.3 and 4 that he is required to pay one time premium of Rs.5 lakhs and he would get Rs.1 crore after 20 years. Accordingly complainant paid Rs.5 lakhs through D.D. dated 13.10.2007....
Manab Sur Vs. Arobinda Biswas
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President: This order relates to the petition for condonation of delay of 793 days in filing this appeal u/s 15 of the C.P. Act. It has been stated in the petition for condonation of delay that the case no.CC 91 of 2010 was disposed of on 31/01/11. The Appellant engaged a Learned Advocate in the complaint case no.91 of 2010, but he did not take any step in the day to day proceeding before the Learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II and the Learned District Forum proceeded to dispose of the case. Although the judgment was delivered on 31/01/11, the Appellant came to know about the judgment and order only after getting notice in Execution Case No.EA 6 of 2013. On 24/05/13 the Appellant came to learn from the local P.S. about the warrant of arrest issued by the Learned District Forum in the said execution case. On 14/06/13 the Appellant engaged another Ld. Advocate and narrated the entire incident to him. Thereafter the appeal was filed, but in the mean time the delay ...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »