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.
icici Bank Limited, Through Authorized Office Vs. Sandeep Sharda
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.10.2013 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant), as under:- œIn view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved his case. Therefore, the complaint stands allowed. The OP is directed to waive of the charges of Rs.29,000/- from the Credit Card account of the complainant forthwith. The OP is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation as well as litigation expenses to the complainant. This order be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall be liable to pay a penalty of Rs.50,000/-, besides paying litigation cost as aforesaid.? 2. The facts, in brief, are that...
Mrs. Ravulaparthi Rukmini Krishna Vs. Icici Lombard General Insurance ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
(T. Ashok Kumar, Member) This complaint is filed U/s.17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against opposite parties and for a direction to the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay accidental claim amount of Rs.29,77,767/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 15-6-2010 till the date of realization, to direct opposite party No.3 to adjust insurance claim amount payable by opposite parties 1 and 2 to the Home Loan account No.LBHYD00001421068 together with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.25,000/- and pay interest on 29,77,767/- @ 18% p.a. from 15-6-2010 till 29-2-2010 i.e. Rs.8,93,330/-. The brief facts of the complaint are that on 09-10-2006, opposite party No.3 sanctioned Home loan of Rs.29,77,767/- to the complainants husband, Ravulaparthi Gopala Krishna for the purpose of construction of a house and loan agreement was executed on 20-10-2006. The loan amount is repayable in 180 EMIs of Rs.32,457/- each and opposite party no.3 opened loan A/c . LBHYD ...
State Bank of Patiala Vs. Surinder Kaur and Another
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party No.1 against the order dated 27.2.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which the complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant was allowed against the said opposite party and it was directed to pay an amount of Rs.27,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum to the complainant from 15.3.2011 till realisation. Litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- were also awarded. 2. The facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the husband of the complainant was serving in the Army in West Bengal and was having a joint saving account No.10702816653 maintained with opposite party No.2. The salary of her husband was being credited by the Government in this account. Opposite party No.2. had also issued ATM Card bearing No.6220180175900055302 to her. On 15.3.2011, when she went to operate the ATM of opposite party No.1 and pressed the button of ...
British Airways Vs. Dr. Mukesh Mehra
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
S.C. Jain, Member: 1) This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the order dt. 22.03.2012 passed by the District Forum-VI, M-Block, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 183/05. 2) The case pertains to desertion of Indian passengers by foreign airlines at alien land, the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant is a senior consultant physician in Delhi, he is qualified MBBS, M.D. (M.ED), Gold Medallist, FIACM, MICC, MCSI, MCCP, MAP and is specialist in Hypertension Heart Deceases and Diabetes, he is also attached with many hospitals of repute in Delhi as consultant and is also having his own clinic in Krishna Nagar, Delhi. The respondent/complainant to update his knowledge and to know latest happening and researches all over the world the used to attend conferences and lectures etc. in different parts of the world from time to time and to attend one such conference and lecture at Zurich (Switzerland), the respondent/complainant alongwith many other senior Doctors from all...
Sarika Udyog, Through It's partner Dipchand Parasmal JaIn Vs. New Indi ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.11.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Jalgaon dismissing C.C.No.91/07. (For the sake of brevity appellant is hereinafter referred as complainant and respondent as opponent insurance company.) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are:- Complainant is partnership firm having business of sales of different types of pulses. He had insured the stock by obtaining policy No.160701/11/05/11/00001116 for the period from 25.3.2006 to 24.3.2007. He had also insured his plant and machinery by obtaining policy No.160701/11/05/11/00001121 for the period from 22.3.2006 to 21.3.2006. 3. In the night in between 4.7.2006 and 5.7.2006 there was heavy rain fall and due to rain fall flood water entered into the premises of complainant where goods i.e. grains were stored. According to him mung mogar bold-142 quintal, mung monger medium -34 quintal which were stored in the premises are da...
Branch Manager, Icici Home Finance Company Ltd. and Others Vs. Gyancha ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against order dtd.21.12.2006 passed by District Forum, Bhandara in CC/05/77 by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that the complainant obtained home loan of Rs.3.00 Lacs for construction of his house, from the opposite party (for short œO.P.?) No.1 “ Finance Co. The O.P.No.2 is the main branch of O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.3 is the collecting agent of O.P.No.1. Due to personal difficulties, the complainant sold his house to Shri Lakhendra Gajbhiye, who was also in need of loan for purchasing of that house. Therefore, through the mediation of O.P.No.1 and 3 the aforesaid loan of the complainant was transferred in the name of Shri Likhendra Gajbhiye and for that purpose all the necessary formalities were completed by the complainant as well as by Shri Gajbhiye. The O.Ps. had shown due of Rs.3,04,741/- including penalty against the complainant. A...
Krishan Gopal Puri Vs. Gdr Day Boarding Public School and Another
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
(Order) Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The appellant/complainant (hereinafter called œthe complainant?) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 26.2.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.268 dated 21.11.2006 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 Rohan Puri and Rajat Puri sons of the complainant were studying in the school of the Ops in 6th and 5th class. At the time of their admission, the respondents had increased the annual charges without the consent of the parents from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1200/- in the mid of the session. The complainant had made various representations to the School Management and the excuse taken by the respondents was that since the CBSE Board had granted affiliation, accordingly, the annual cha...
Prabir G. Dastidar Vs. Icici Bank Ltd.
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
S.A. Siddiqui(Oral) 1. This appeal has been filed by the complainant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) against the order dated 26.8.11 passed in complaint case No. 156/08 by DCDRF-X, Govt. Of NCT of Delhi. 2. Facts leading to the filing of this appeal are noted below: Complainant/appellant deposited a cheque No. 001186 dated 13.10.06 for an amount of Rs. 11,000/- with respondent (ICICI Bank) on 20.10.06 towards balance transfer. This cheque was drawn on SBI Credit Card with whom complainant/appellant had credit card amount by way of fund transfer for clearing the outstanding payment due towards credit card of the respondent Bank. The said cheque was got encashed by the respondent Bank on 28.10.06 but they kept on denying this fact and failed to reflect the said amount in the monthly statement. The complainant/appellant brought this fact to the notice of the different authorities but with no result. Finally he made a complaint to the...
Menino X. Ambrose Carvalho, Nri Vs. Dukle Construction and Another
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. By complaint filed on 12/09/13, the complainant seeks for a declaration that the registered agreement dated 30/03/10 is valid, subsisting and binding on OP No. 1 builder, and its unilateral termination is illegal and not binding on the complainant, and other consequential reliefs. 2. The undisputed facts are as follows: 2.1. The complainant is a non-resident Indian located in Dubai and has filed this complaint through his wife and attorney, pursuant to power of attorney executed on 25/01/13. 2.2. OP No. 1 is a firm of builders of which 1A and 1B are the partners. OP No. 2 is the financer of the complainant. 2.3. The complainant paid to OP No. 1, builder, a sum of Rs. 5 lacs in three installments between 8/8/09 and 24/3/09 for the construction of a flat identified as flat No. 205 in Block-I, having built up area of 110 sq.mts, and carpet area of 88 sq.mts, in their building under construction known as Dukle Heaven located at Taleigao in property bearing Chalta...
Tv18 Home Shopping Network Ltd, Vs. Manjit Singh Sethi
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-22-2014
Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party against the order dated 2.3.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which the complaint filed by respondent/complainant was allowed and the opposite party was directed to comply with the orders dated 1.3.2009, copies of which are Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4, and provide the items under the gift certificates (in short œGCs?) without charging any amount from the complainant. It was also ordered to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. 2. The facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the opposite party was dealing in sale of all kinds of household items/material through internet marketing as well as through TV channels. The complainant browsed the website of the opposite party known as http://www.homeshop18.comand registered himself as a customer with it choosing E-mail ID with passw...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »