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 Professional Couriers Vs. M/S. Welcome Furniture and General Store ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This appeal is filed by the original opponent No.1 against the judgment and order dated 03.09.2009 passed by the District Forum Ahmednagr in consumer complaint No. 198/2009 whereby the complaint is allowed holding original opponent No. 1 and 2 liable for deficiency in service. For better understanding the appellant is hereinafter termed as œopponent No.1? and the respondent as the œcomplainant?. 2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are that, the complainant is dealing with the business of sale of furniture and other stationery articles including sale of mobile handsets. That, on 20.10.2008 he had sent parcel containing two mobiles handsets through opponent Courier Company. It was submitted that the representative of the opponent no.1 namely Shri. Rahul Sirke who was working in the courier office on 20.10.2008 had verified both the handsets, out of which one was Nokia company having cost of Rs.7584/- and other of Samsang company ...
Managing Director, National Seeds Corporation Limited and Another Vs. ...
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/12/766 as well as Appeal No. FA/12/773, which have been preferred respectively by O.P. No.1 and O.P.No.4 of the Complaint Case No.05/2011, decided by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) vide order dated 23.11.2012, directing thereby to both the appellants/(O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.4) to pay the complainants cost of 230.40 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 aforesaid amount would first be payable by O.P.No.4 of the complaint case and in case of its failure, the aforesaid amount will be payable by O.P.No.1. Litigation cost, Rs.2,000/- has been quantified and the appellants./ (O.P.No.1 ...
Chairman, Sarv Hitkar Educational Society and Another Vs. Saurabh Kuma ...
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.72 dated 5.9.2012 vide which the complaint was accepted with the direction to the Ops to refund the fee of Rs. 39,355/- after deducting a sum of Rs. 1,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% from 10.9.2010 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. 39,355/- vide receipt No. 2384 and 1847 dated 20.7.2010 and 4.6.2010, however, he did not join the tea...
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shanker Masih and Another
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.12.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 115 of 2010. Vide its order, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- within a month from the date of the order. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that one Sh. Saurabh Masih was the registered owner of the vehicle named Tata Indigo bearing registration No. DL3C-AF-3536. The said vehicle was insured with the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. for the period from 11.12.2007 to 10.12.2008. The owner of the vehicle alongwith his brother Sh. Shekhar Masih died in an accident at a place in District Ajmer (Rajasthan). Sh. Rachit Sam Reddy, a friend of Sh. Saurabh Masih and Sh. Shekhar Masih, who was also coming from Banglore to Delhi in that vehicle, lodged the F.I.R. with the nearest Police Station on the ...
Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd., Rep: by Its Chairman and Managing ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
T. Ashok Kumar, Member This is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties against the order in C.C.No.159/2011 dated 19-6-2012 on the file of District Forum-II, Krishna at Vijayawada. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder: The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainant owned Ashok Leyland/Taurus 2516 vehicle bearing registration No. WB 37 A 1631 and obtained vehicle loan of Rs.6,05,808/- from the 2nd opposite party which is branch of the 1st opposite party on 31.8.2007. The loan was repayable in 36 monthly instalments from 5.10.2007 to 5.9.2010 @ Rs.23,349/- and the opposite party took blank cheques from the complainant as security and the vehicle was re-registered as AP 16 TX 3599. The complainant was paying monthly instalments regularly and in the year, 2009 there was non-receipt of bills from the contractor and due to that reason there was default and he could not pay instalments for three months to the opposite parti...
Chairman, Sarv Hitkar Educational Society and Another Vs. Sahil Bhagat
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.68 dated 5.9.2012 vide which the complaint was accepted with the direction to the Ops to refund the fee of Rs. 39,355/- after deducting a sum of Rs. 1,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% from 9.9.2010 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. 39,355/- vide receipt No. 1848 dated 4.6.2010, however, he did not join the teaching classes as he had ...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. and Another Vs. Anita Zil ...
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Jan-23-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. This appeal is filed by the OP in C.C. No.38/2008, and is directed against order dated 16/01/2013, of the Lr. North Goa District Forum, by which the OP has been directed to pay to the Complainant: "a) a sum of Rs.5,39,600/- being total sum assured with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident, and b) Compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of financial loss, mental tension, etc. and Rs.25,000/- as costs of litigation. In case the compensation is not paid after the expiry of the period of appeal, the OP is ordered to pay interest @ 12%." 2. At the time of hearing of this appeal Shri Kurtikar, the lr. advocate of the OP, has made two submissions. The first is that the Lr. District Forum ought to have granted compensation on the basis of the Surveyors report and in this context lr. advocate Shri Kurtikar has placed reliance on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shyam Umakant Naik, 2012 (4) CPR 22 wherein it was held that a report of a Surveyor is an importan...
icici Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited and Others Vs. Naresh ...
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 10.11.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.250 dated 9.9.2010 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed with the direction to the Ops to pay a sum of Rs. 3 lacs alongwith interest @ 9% from 14.3.2010 till its realization, pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainant(hereinafter called œthe complainant?) against the opposite parties on the allegations that OP No. 2 approached the wife of the complainant for the purchase of Life Insurance Policy and it was represented that in case insured deposit an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for three years continuously then she will be insured for an amount of Rs. 3 lacs for a period of 10 years and ...
Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited Vs. Nutan Sanjay Pawar
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 opponent against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2006 passed by the District Forum, Dhule in consumer complaint No.45/2006, whereby complaint is partly allowed holding the appellant as liable for deficiency in service. The respondent is the original complainant. For the sake of brevity the appellant is hereinafter termed as œopponent finance corporation?, whereas the respondent as the œcomplainant?. 2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are that, the husband of complainant namely late Sanjay Kashinath Pawar had obtained a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- in two installments i.e. firstly Rs.2,00,000/- and later on Rs.1,00,000/- on 04.06.2005 for housing purpose, from opponent finance corporation. That, while sanctioning the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- the complainants late husband Sanjay Pawar had mortgaged his LIC policy bearing No.967398180. Whereas at the time of sanctioning the further amount of loan o...
Rajat Das Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
Debasis Bhattacharya, Member: This appeal is directed against the judgment/Order dated 30.05.2012, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Siliguri, in Case No. 84/S/2011. By the impugned judgment/Order , the Ld. District Forum has allowed the case on contest in part against the OP and dismissed the same against the proforma OP and directed the OP to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 4,328/- within 45 days of the order, failing which the award will carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the order. Being dissatisfied and aggrieved with the same, the Complainant thereof has preferred this appeal. The case of the Complainant is that he is a practicing lawyer at the Siliguri Sub“Divisional Court and for his own requirement, he purchased Maruti 800 AC Car bearing registration No. WB/74K-8989 in the year 2006, and the same has been insured with the OP for the period from 28.09.2009 to 27.09.2010. On 28.06.2010, at night, the said car met with an accident and it became badly damaged. On ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »