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.
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Arjun and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
(Order) R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 02.02.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No.72/2009. By the impugned order the complaint of the complainant/respondent no.1 has been allowed by the District Forum and O.P.No.1/appellant, has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant/respondent no.1. along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 04.04.2009 till date of order within a period of two month further directed that if the appellant/Insurance Company fails to pay the said amount within two months from the date of order, then it will be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. The District Forum also awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation in favour of the complainant/respondent no.1. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case of the complai...
institute of Engineering and Technology and Others Vs. Manisha Kanwar ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
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 4.3.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.375 dated 11.11.2008 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and the OP was directed to refund the entire amount of fee deposited by the complainant i.e. Rs. 37,425/- after deducting amount of Rs. 4,000/- already refunded and also after deducting the processing fee as per instructions of AICTE i.e. Rs. 1,000/- and also pay interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 22.12.2007 till realization. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties on the allegations that complainant No. 1 had applied to get admission in MCA-II Branch with the Ops and got the same in Management Quota for the session 2008 and had deposited the required...
The Manager, State Bank of India, Bhiwani Through Sh.S.L. Malhotra Vs. ...
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated September 3rd, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (for short District Forum), whereby complaint filed by Satyender Pal-complainant (respondent herein) alleging excess withdrawal of Rs.5,000/- from his account, was accepted and following direction was issued to The Manager State Bank of India, Bhiwani-opposite party (appellant herein):- œ1. To refund Rs.5000/- to the complainant along with saving interest w.e.f. 2.4.2008 i.e. from the date of deduction till its final realization. 2. To pay Rs.1100/- as litigation charges. The compliance of the order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.? 2. Satyander Pal-respondent filed complaint with the allegations that he was maintaining saving bank account bearing account No.30064441369 with State Bank of India-appellant. On April 2nd, 2008, he withdrew a sum of Rs.15,000/- a...
D. Anitha Vs. B. Buchi Reddy
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The complainant is the appellant. She filed complaint claiming for completion of construction of the house by the respondent and a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards compensation as also an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards damages. 2. The appellant filed complaint stating that the respondent entered into construction agreement with her on 04.03.2010 for construction of house in her plot bearing number 71 situate ate Ambedkar Nagar, Jillelliguda, Hyderabad for consideration of Rs.4,10,000/-. As per the terms of the agreement, the appellant agreed to complete the construction of the house within two months from the date of agreement. The appellant paid the amount of Rs.4,10,000/- and an excess amount of Rs.40,000/- to the appellant and the appellant failed to complete the construction of the house. The appellant lodged complaint before the Police, Meerpet before whom the appellant promised that he would complete the construction work of the house wit...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Vs. Vedmati Kashyap and Anothe ...
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 07.05.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.12/2010, 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 07.05.2012 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 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 has ...
Hardev Singh Vs. Aulakh Hospital Clinical Laboratory and Others
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 11.8.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.805 dated 8.12.2006 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainant under Sections 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant is father of late Sh. Salinder Singh, who died on 12.9.2006 and he was suffering from Diabetes Mellitus and was taken to hospital of OP No. 1 on 30.8.2006 and OP No. 2 after taking blood group B negative started treatment and liver function report shows that serum billrubin is at 8.9% whereas it should have been less then 1% which shows that he was suffering from defective liver and...
Asst. Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. an ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by the original opponents who are the authorities of the MSEDCL against the judgment and order dated 31.10.2007 passed by District Forum Beed in consumer complaint No.83/2003 whereby the complaint is partly allowed holding the appellants as liable for deficiency in service. The respondent is the original complainant. For the better understanding the appellants are hereinafter referred as œopponents? and the respondents as the œcomplainants?. 2. The brief facts of this appeal are that, the original complainant namely Badrinarayan s/o. Shriram Baheti died during the pendency of the complaint and hence his LRs namely Dwarkadas and Ganeshlal who are the present complainants were added as a party to the complaint. It was the case of the complainants that they belonged to the joint family. That, the complainants had owned land admeasuring 4 Hector 86 R from Gut No.204 and their cousin brother namely Ramesh Ramnarayan Baheti had own...
Ashish Agrawal Vs. Manager, Indusind Bank Limited and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
(Order) R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 02.07.2012, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No.12/2011. By the impugned order the complaint of the complainant/appellant, has been dismissed by the District Forum. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case of the complainant/appellant before the District Forum are as under:- 3. That the complainant/appellant is owner of a vehicle Tata 2515 bearing registration No.C.G.-13-D-3020. He purchased the said vehicle on the basis of re-finance facility on 02.12.2009 from the OPs/respondents and Hire Purchase Agreement No. P.Q.001750 H was executed between the complainant/appellant and OPs/respondents, which was effective till 07.10.2012. The complainant / appellant got the vehicle insured and according to the agreement, the next insurance was to be obtained by the OPs/respondents and OPs/respondents collected the premium amount from th...
The Special Officer / Secretary, Cuddalore Co-operative Primary Agricu ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
J. Jayaram, Judicial Member This appeal is filed by the opposite party against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuddalore in C.C.3/2008, dated 27-04-2010, allowing the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant who is a member of the opposite party bank obtained a loan from the opposite party bank on 30-03-2000 for purchasing a Tractor with Dozer for agricultural work. While so, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O. Ms. (Co-operative Department) No.70, dated 13-05-2006 waiving the loan obtained for agricultural purpose as on 31-3-2006. As on 27-12-2006, the outstanding amount (Principal and interest) was Rs.3,78,140/-. The opposite party refused to waive the loan amount as per G.O. which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party; hence the complaint praying for direction to the opposite party to waive his outstanding loan amount and to pay costs. 3. According to the opposite party, the loan availed by the c...
Harpuneet Singh Ghuman Vs. Guru Nanak Dev University Through Its Regis ...
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 20.5.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No. 22 dated 12.1.2009 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite party on the allegations that the complainant got the admission in B.Tech Electronics in the Department of Electronics with the opposite party under NRI sponsored category being sponsored by Wing Commander (Retd.) J.M. Kaushal, therefore, there is relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties. She had taken the admission in July, 2006 by making payment of Rs. 2,43,955/- vide receipt No. 45301 dated 14.7.2006. However, shortly after joining the course, he fell sick and could not adjust with...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »