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.
Nagpur Beghar Mitra Vs. Sushila Blase Franswa and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against order dtd. 10.12.2004 passed by District Forum, Nagpur in CC/95/142 by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the original complaint in brief is that the opposite Party (for short œthe O.P.?) No.2 is the builder and contractor. The O.P.No.1 has taken the responsibility for the transaction made by the complainant with O.P.No.2. The complainant purchased open plot admeasuring 50 sq.mtrs. with constructed tenement thereon admeasuring 20 sq.mtrs. from O.P.Nos.1 and 2 for total consideration of 65,000/-. The complainant paid them the said entire consideration. However, they did not complete construction within time. On the contrary, the O.Ps demanded extra amount of Rs.8,092/- being so called escalation price, Rs.2,950/- towards so called electric meter deposit charges and Rs.2,500/- towards registration of sale-deed of the tenement. The complainant paid the same to th...
Sanjay Mihomal Godhwani Vs. Union Bank of India, Bhusawal Branch and A ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by original complainant against the judgment and order dated 27.3.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Jalgaon in C.C.No.43/2007 whereby complaint is dismissed. Respondent No.1 is the original opponent No.1 whereas respondent No.2, 2a to 2d are original opponents No.2 and 2a to 2d. For the better understanding appellant is hereinafter termed as complainant whereas respondent No.1 as opponent bank and respondent No.2, 2a to 2d are collectively termed as opponent borrowers. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that, the complainant had invested under fixed deposit scheme of opponent bank amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively for period of two years on 31.3.2000. This fixed deposit receipts were bearing number as 2656477 and 2656478 respectively. That, the said fixed deposit receipts were renewed again for a period of further two years on 31.3.2002 to 31.3.2005. It was contended by the complainant that since he w...
Punjab State Electricity Board and Another Vs. Lakhbir Singh
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
(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 26.8.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.137 dated 12.6.2008 vide which the complaint was allowed and demand of Rs. 61,493/- raised vide notice No. 4.6.2008 by the Board from the complainant was uncalled for and set-aside the same and the amount, if any, paid on the basis of such notice was ordered to be refunded to the complainant or adjusted in the future bills with the direction to pay Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainant (hereinafter called œthe complainant?) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant is a consumer of the OP having connect...
Narsinva Alias Subhash Vs. the Divisional Manager, Hdfc Bank Ltd. and ...
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
Jagdish Prabhudessai, Member: By this order we shall dispose off the present appeal filed by the Appellant herein, inter alia, challenging the order dated 17/10/13 passed by the Lr. North Goa District Forum in complaint No. 53/08. Vide the impugned order dated 17/10/13, the Lr. Lower Forum has disposed off the complaint filed by the complainant i.e. the Appellant herein in complaint No. 53/08. The Lr. Forum vide the impugned order has allowed the said complaint and directed the OP No. 2 therein to pay to the complainant Rs.50,000/- together with simple interest at 9% p.a. thereon from 1/3/07 (being the date of the claim rejection vide letter of 22/2/07 till actual payment and compensation of Rs.10,000/- with costs of Rs.5000/-). We called for the record from the Lower Forum in complaint No. 53/08 and perused the same. We have also heard arguments in detail advanced by both the counsels for the parties to the present appeal. The case of the Appellant as presented before the Lr. Lower Fo...
M/S. B.M. Retailers Private Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. a ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
P.B. Joshi, Presiding Judicial, Member: [1] This appeal filed by the Appellant/original Complainant takes an exception to an order dated 16/11/2010 passed by the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dismissing in default the Consumer Complaint No.192 of 2007 (B. M. Retailers Private Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another). [2] Today when the matter is called out, Adv. Sudhan Y. Amare is present on behalf of the Appellant. Adv. Smt. Sneha S. Dwivedi is present on behalf of the Respondent No.1. Learned Counsel for the Appellant placed on the record an affidavit as regards service of notice of this appeal to the Respondent No.2 through paper publication alongwith a copy of newspaper. It is taken on record. Thus, service of notice to the Respondent No.2 is complete. However, Respondent No.2 is absent today. We have heard the learned counsel present before us. [3] Upon hearing both the learned counsel, for reasons mentioned in the memorandum of appeal and to...
Anil Hunjan Vs. Country Club (India) Limited and Others
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.10.2013 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant and his wife were called at Hotel Aroma, Sector 22, Chandigarh on 2.8.2012 by the Opposite Parties, for becoming a member of their club for 10 years vacations. It was stated that the complainant came back to his house as he wanted to study the concept. It was stated that the consultant of the Opposite Parties came to the house of the complainant at around 9.00 PM on 2.8.2012 and again explained the scheme and allured him with rosy picture of the club. It was further stated that as it was 11.00 P.M., the complainant showed his inability to pay Rs.70,000/-. It was further stated that on the asking of the said consultant, the complainant paid Rs.40,000/-...
Gauri Shankar Vs. Branch Manager Punjab National Bank
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.06.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, in consumer complaint No. 88 of 2011, whereby the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Sh. Gauri Shankar is the proprietor of a firm named as M/s Ganesh Trading Company. He had taken a cash-credit limit of Rs. 3,00,000/- from Punjab National Bank, Haridwar Road, Rishikesh “ opposite party for his business with certain terms and conditions, as laid down in the written agreement executed between the parties. The complainant had hypothecated the stock with the Bank in pursuant to the said agreement. The immovable property, which is in the name of complainants wife, was also mortgaged with the Bank. As per the agreement, the stock was to be insured with an insurance company approved by the Bank and the complainant was required to submit to the Bank receipts of the premium paid...
Sukhvir Singh Vs. Muni Lal Chopra Hospital and Others
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
(Order) Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The complainant Sukhvir Singh(hereinafter called œthe complainant?) has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the C.P. Act) against the opposite parties on the allegations that Mrs. Parkash Kaur mother of the complainant was admitted in Ranjit Hospital, Putlighar, G.T. Road, Amritsar on 1.1.2002 at 1.30 a.m., however, the hospital referred the case to Dr. Rohit Kapoor, who diagnosed it a case of PNEUMONITIS. The treatment of Parkash Kaur continued till the complainant decided to shift her to Muni Lal Chopra Hospital, The Mall, Amritsar and she was shifted there on 4.1.2002 vide registration No. 1539/01/02 at 7.35 p.m. under Acute Respiratory Deficiency Syndrome (ARDS) and she was kept in ICU under the treatment of Dr. Rohit Kapoor and after few days, she was shifted from ICU to a normal room. Thereafter for treatment of the Chest specialist was called, namely, Dr. N. Chawla on 15....
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Harbans Singh
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This is insurers appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 10.10.2008 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 149 of 2004, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant “ opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.1,05,700/- to the respondent “ complainant together with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant is the registered owner of truck No. UP07-F-2965. The said truck was insured with the appellant “ United India Insurance Company Limited at an IDV of Rs.2,80,000/- for the period from 23.04.2003 to 22.04.2004. On 22.08.2003, Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh issued a letter to Sh. Subhash Kumar, IAS, Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri for deployment of trucks for transportation of apples from District Shimla,...
North Delhi Power Ltd. Vs. Premlata
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
S.C. Jain, Member: 1) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dt. 22.05.2012 passed by District Forum (North) Tis Hazari, Delhi in Execution Case No. 108/09. 2) The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the respondent/complainant had filed the Consumer Complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the appellant. Electricity connection bearing K. No. 33105031646 was in the name of one M/s R.K. Enterprises. The respondent/complainant purchased the premises where this connection was installed sometime in 2007. On 28.03.2008 the above said connection was disconnected due to non-payment of outstanding dues but the respondent/complainant allegedly restored the electricity connection illegally and this fact came to the notice of the appellant when the officials of the appellant visited the premises of the respondent/complainant to ascertain meter reading and on many occasions the respondent/complainant deliberately did no...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »