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.
Achru Ram Director of M/S. Jai Mata Foods Pvt. Ltd, Vs. United India A ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant for modification of the order dated 4.8.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which his complaint was partly allowed and the respondents/opposite parties were directed to pay Rs.1,81,500/- + Rs.9,000/- alongwith 9% interest. It was further directed that the amount already paid by the opposite parties to the tune of Rs.1,37,878/- be deducted from the said amount. 2. The facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant, being the owner of the vehicle Tata Tempo, 1109, having Registration No.PB-13Q-7925, had comprehensively insured the same with the opposite parties which was effective for the period from 11.8.2007 to 10.8.2008. The vehicle met with an accident on 12.5.2008 at Bahadurgarh. The opposite parties were informed immediately, which deputed the Surveyor to conduct the survey at the spot. The vehicle was fully ...
Lakshi Shanker Tripathi Vs. Food Corporation of India and Others
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
(Order) Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Misc. Application No. 29 of 2014 for delay There is delay of 25 days in filing the appeal on account of mis-placement of the documents by the complainant. It is supported by an affidavit. It is stated in the application that the delay in filing the appeal is not intentional. Keeping in view the contentions as stated in the application, the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Main Case 2. The appellant/complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 23.10.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No. 135 dated 26.3.2012 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed by the learned District Forum on account of limitation and want of jurisdiction. 3. The complaint was filed by the complainant on the allegations that he was working as Assista...
National Seeds Corporation Limited, Beej Bhawan, Pusa Parisar and Anot ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
(Order) R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This order will govern disposal of appeal No.FA/12/767 as well as Appeal No.FA/12/774, which have been preferred respectively by O.P. No.4 and O.P.No.3 of the Complaint Case No.27/2011, decided by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) vide order dated 23.11.2012, whereby the District Forum allowed the complaint filed by the complainant against O.P.Nos.3 and 4 and directed both the appellants/O.P.Nos.3 and 4 to pay the complainant cost of 48 Quintals of paddy, as notified by the Government of Chhattisgarh for procurement of the aforesaid crop, within two months from the date of order, along with interest @ 6% p.a., with further direction that in case of failure of payment of aforesaid amount, the amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a. It has also been directed that the amount would first be payable by O.P.No.3 of the complaint case and in case of its failure to pay the amount, the aforesaid amount will be payable by O.P....
Chairman, Sarv Hitkar Educational Society and Another Vs. Didar Singh
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
(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 31.1.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.70 dated 5.9.2012 vide which the complaint was accepted with the direction to the Ops to refund the fee of Rs. 25,000/- after deducting a sum of Rs. 1,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% from 31.8.2010 till date alongwith compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 3,000/-. 2. The complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called œthe complainant?) that he had got admission with OP No. 1 through Punjab Technical University (in short PTU) run by respondent No. 2-the Chairman. At that time he had deposited Rs. 25,000/- vide receipt No. 2038 and 2029 dated 18.6.2010 and 17.6.2010, however, he did not join the te...
National Insurance Company Ltd, Vs. Gurbaksh Singh and Others
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party No.1 against the order dated 11.1.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which the complaint of the respondent No.1/complainant was allowed and opposite parties No.1 and 2 were directed to pay him a sum of Rs.15,000/-, which was spent by him on his treatment alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of complaint i.e. 4.8.2009 till realization. They were further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as costs of litigation. 2. The facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant purchased a policy under Bhai Ghanhya Sehat Sewa Scheme (in short œBGSSS?) from the opposite parties vide policy No.400104/46/08/85/00000096. Opposite party No.1 was appointed Third Party Administrator (TPA) for settling the claim. It was pleaded that the complainant suffered from Renal Calculi and was admitted in opposite party No.4 hospi...
Suresh Bhimsen Sethi Vs. Gajanan Grihataran Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by the original complainant against the judgment and order 30/08/2008 passed by the Dist.Consumer Forum Jalgaon in CC.No.141/2007 whereby the complaint is partly allowed holding the respondents to have committed deficiency in service. The respondent No. 1 to 6 who are the office bearers of the society namely Shri. Gajanan Grihataran Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Jalgaon are the original opponents Nos. 1 to 6 whereas the respondent No. 6 is the original opponent No. 7 which is the Maharashtra State Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd, Mumbai branch Jalgaon. For better understanding the appellant is hereinafter referred as œcomplainant? and the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 together as the œopponent society? and the respondent No. 6 as the œopponent Housing Finance Corporation?. 2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under :- That, the complainant had obtained loan of Rs 72,000/- for the purchase of house fro...
Jagmohan Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Others
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 13.11.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which his complaint was dismissed. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant was having an electric connection, bearing account No.W51GC51074A. He was surprised to receive a bill dated 30.9.2008 in which a demand of Rs.1,59,199/- was raised as sundry charges on account of unauthorised use of electricity. Hence, he filed the complaint before the District Forum for quashing the said illegal demand. 3. In reply to the notice, the opposite parties submitted that the connection of the complainant was checked on 2.2.2008 by Javed Raj and Jaswinder Singh, Meter Inspectors, during which, he was found stealing electric energy by putting powerful magnet in front of the counter of the meter due to which scratches appeared on the body of the meter. It was a clear c...
Chairman, Sarv Hitkar Educational Society and Another Vs. Jasvir Singh
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
(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 31.1.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.69 dated 5.9.2012 vide which the complaint was accepted with the direction to the Ops to refund the fee of Rs. 36,305/- after deducting a sum of Rs. 1,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% from 31.8.2010 till date alongwith compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 3,000/-. 2. The complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called œthe complainant?) that he had got admission with OP No. 1 through Punjab Technical University (in short PTU) run by respondent No. 2-the Chairman. At that time he had deposited Rs. 36,305/- vide receipt No. 12403 dated 29.6.2010, however, he did not join the teaching classes as he h...
The Andhra Bank Rep. by Its Branch Manager, Thirumalagiri Branch Anumu ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite party no.1 is the appellant. The first respondent filed complaint claiming a sum of Rs.54,400/- towards subsidy granted by the second respondent and interest @ 24% per annum thereon as also a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and costs. 2. The case of the first respondent as seen from the averments of the complaint is that he applied for crop loan under LOI Scheme for the purpose of raising sweet orange grove. The appellant bank is the financing bank and the respondent no.2 released a sum of Rs.54,400/- through cheque dated 10.2.2009 to the appellant bank. On representations made the first respondent, the appellant bank addressed letter dated 8.12.2010 to the respondent no.2 informing the respondent no.2 that it had not received subsidy amount relating to horticulture loan of the first respondent. 3. The first respondent submitted that the appellant bank addressed letter dated 8.5.2010 with a request to send the loan a...
Chairman, Sarv Hitkar Educational Society and Another Vs. Tarun Kumar
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
(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 31.1.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.71 dated 5.9.2012 vide which the complaint was accepted with the direction to the Ops to refund the fee of Rs. 39,360/- after deducting a sum of Rs. 1,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% from 13.9.2010 till date alongwith compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 3,000/-. 2. The complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called œthe complainant?) that he had got admission with OP No. 1 through Punjab Technical University (in short PTU) run by respondent No. 2-the Chairman. At that time he had deposited Rs. 39,360/- vide receipt No. 12268 dated 10.8.2010, however, he did not join the teaching classes as he h...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »