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.
Raipur Raigarh Transport Vs. Ram Cloth Stores, Manager 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 06.10.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.75/2011, 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 06.10.2012, passed by the District Forum and also filed application under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for both the parties on the application filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 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 ...
Vasavi Jyothi Constructions, Represented by Its Managing Partners: P. ...
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, Chennai [South] in C.C.685/2000, dated 23-12-2008, allowing the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant is that the members of the complainant Residential Owners Association purchased flats from the opposite party and the opposite party collected Rs.30,000/- from each of the flat owners towards deposit of electricity board, metro water supply and sewerage board; whereas, the opposite party spent only Rs.10,000/- for the same and hence the members of the complainant association are entitled to refund of Rs.20,000/- each. Further, there are so many defects in the construction of the flat and there are deviations and violation of the terms and conditions and all these amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 3. Hence the complaint praying for direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.2.5 Lac to each member of the complainan...
Tukaram Vithalrao Kale (Died), His L.R.S and Others Vs. Executive Engi ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Challenge in all these four appeals is the common judgment and order dated 31.10.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Parbhani partly allowing consumer complaint No.92/2008 and 95/2008 directing appellants/opponents to pay to complainants/respondents Sarjerao in C.C.No.92/08 damages at Rs.48,000/- with interest @ 9% pa. and complainant Late Tukaram in C.C.No.95/2008 damages at Rs.34,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. and further compensation of Rs.2000/- each and Rs.1000/- more each towards the cost of proceedings. 2. Appeal No.1302/08 is filed by original complainant Late Tukaram and appeal No.1303/2008 is filed by original complainant Sarjerao for enhancement of damages. Whereas appeal Nos.1452/2008 and 1453/2008 are filed by opponents. As all these appeals impugn the same common judgment, we have decided to dispose of these appeals by this common judgment. 3. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that:- Complainants Sarjerao and L...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Vs. Ashok Kumar Tiwari
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 the order dated 05.11.2012, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum"), in Complaint Case No.147/2011. By the impugned order, the District Forum has allowed the complaint of the complainant/respondent and directed the O.P./appellant (Insurance Company) to pay a sum of Rs.6,72,447.90 to the complainant/respondent within a period of two months from the date of order, otherwise the aforesaid amount would be payable along with interest @ 7% p.a. The District Forum further awarded the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation. 2. The facts of the complaint case filed by the complainant/respondent before the District Forum are as under :- 3. The complainant/respondent, is carrying transport business and he is owner of one Highwa Truck bearing registration No.C.G.10-C-2848 and he purchased the vehicle ...
J. Suresh Kumar Vs. Whirlpool of India (Pvt) Ltd. Represented by Its M ...
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 complainant against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore in C.C. No.196/2010, dated 08-02-2011, dismissing the complaint.2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Washing Machine from the 2nd opposite party on 13-3-2008 for Rs.14,400/- with two year warranty. The washing machine frequently developed problems and the 3rd opposite party who is the authorized service dealer used to attend and rectify the defects. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards service charges. However, the washing machine became defective and did not function on 16-11-2009, the alleged reason being loss of memory, and non-function of the dryer and the defect could not be rectified by the 3rd opposite party. The complainant demanded replacement of the washing machine by providing a new one on the ground that the washing machine had manufacturing defects; but the 3rd opposite party could not rectify the d...
Country Club India Limited (Ccil), Through Its Authorized Signatory/Ag ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.09.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it allowed the complaint, filed by the complainant and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants) as under:- œ13. In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 to 2 are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 to 2, jointly and severally, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are directed to:- [a] To make necessary changes in the agreement, as per the promise made to the Complainant, or refund Rs.70,000/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of its deposit, till it is paid; [b] To pay Rs.25,000/-on account of unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and causi...
Panasonic Avc Networks India Co. Ltd. Vs. AfrIn Khatoon and Another
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
S.A. Siddiqui, (Judicial) Member: 1) Alleging deficiency of service on the part of the OP, complainant/respondent-1 filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (South) New Delhi, for a refund of the price of the T.V., compensation and the cost. During the course of the proceedings on 01.08.2011 ex-parte proceedings were drawn against OP-2/appellant as neither OP-2 nor counsel was present before the Forum. Counsel for the OP-2 reached a bit late and moved an application for setting aside ex-parte order, but this application was dismissed on the ground that the District Forum had no power to set aside the ex-parte or to recall its own order. Therefore, the OP-2 preferred this appeal which is under consideration. 2) On to filing the appeal, notices were issued to the respondents. Respondent-1/complainant appeared and filed reply. 3) It has been argued on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that on 01.08.2011, counsel for the appellant could not...
Vijay Kumar Lahimor Vs. Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Limite ...
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 14.12.2012, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Janjgir Champa (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No.07/2011, whereby the complaint of the complainant/appellant, has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case of the complainant/appellant before the District Forum are that the complainant/appellant is registered owner of vehicle Bajaj C.T. 100 bearing registration No.C.G.-11-BA-3455. The said vehicle was insured with the O.P/Insurance Company for the period from 04.07.2005 to 03.07.2006 and Policy No. is 152404/303/2556/31/2006/10337. On 27.06.2006, Syed Abdul Abid, who is friend of the complainant/appellant took the said vehicle and parked it near Peela Mahal, in front of Vicky Electronics shop. Syed Abdul Abid came out of shop at about 7.30 P.M., then he found that the vehicle was not parked where he parked the vehicle and some unknown person had...
Preeti Khatri Vs. Punjab College of Engineering and Technology Through ...
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 21.10.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.116 dated 26.3.2007 vide which the complaint was partly allowed and the Ops were directed to refund the refundable securities to the complainant on filing the application form. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties on the allegations that she took the admission with the respondents in first year of Electronics and Communication Engineering and deposited a sum of Rs. 25,536/- as fee vide receipt No. 84 dated 22.7.2006 and also submitted original documents and issued the receipt. At the time of taking the admission, the respondents did not mention the criteria of fees in the admission form. However, due to personal reason th...
Raghvendra Sewashram Samiti Vs. Jaksons Limited
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Jan-24-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President (Oral). 1. This is complainants appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 28.09.2007 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 26 of 2006, whereby the District Forum has disposed of the consumer complaint, by holding that the generator set in question has been set right by the opposite parties and is in working properly and that there is no justification for extending the warranty period of the generator set and the complainant is not entitled to any compensation from the opposite parties. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the complainant had filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar against the opposite parties regarding defect in the generator set purchased by the complainant from the opposite party No. 1 “ Jaksons Limited. In the consumer complaint, it was stated that inspite of various communications to the opposite parties, the opposite parties failed to rectify...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »