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.
Haresh Lekhraj Melwani Vs. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Lt ...
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Jan-21-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. This is a Complainants appeal and is directed against order dated 07/08/2013 of the North Goa District Forum, by which the consumer complaint filed by the Complainant on 08/05/08, has been dismissed. 2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose off this appeal. 3. The Complainant owns a shop known as Lucky Stop in Rizvi Chambers, Panaji, and deals in watches, mobile handsets, etc. The Complainants shop was managed by one V. S. Deorah and one Ms. Cynthia was in charge. The shop had two keys, one of which was with Complainants employee Harry Ghanshyandas and the other i.e. duplicate was with MRs.Goretti. 4. The Complainant had obtained from the OP one policy known as œShopkeepers Package Policy? and the other œBurglary Insurance Policy? effective from 23/05/06 and 16/07/05, respectively. The first policy was for the shop, the second was for the warehouse, as informed by Shri. Kurtikar. 5. The shop was closed on 02/02/06 at about 2000 hours by ...
The A.P. Cooperative Housing Society Federation Ltd., Bagh Lingampally ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite party no.1 is the appellant. The first respondent filed complaint on the premise of deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and the second respondent. The first respondent submitted that during his service as police constable at Nizamabad, he was a member of the second respondent society which is constituent of the appellant-society and he availed loan, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the appellant-society on agreement that the loan amount is repayable in 10 equated annual installments @ Rs.10,000/- and he could not repay the loan installments regularly due to his daughter meeting with accident which resulted in loss of vision in her left eye. 2. The first respondent submitted that he met with a motor vehicle accident in the month of October, 2001 and for his treatment he incurred huge expenditure. He represented to the appellant-society that due to financial stringencies and his inability to repay the loan amount...
Dr. Mobile, Rep. by Its Proprietor M. Naveen Kumar Goud Vs. Royal Sund ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. This is a complaint filed u/s 17(1)(A)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act for a direction to Opposite party no.1 to settle the claim of the complainant of Rs.21,14,100/- with interest @ 18% p.a., and direct Opposite party no.2 to settle his loan account of Rs.5 lakhs and direct the Ops to pay Rs.5 lakhs towards compensation and Rs.20,000/- towards costs. 2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is dealing in Mobile phones sales and services. He had availed loan from Opposite party no.2 bank and got his premises insured by obtaining Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy covering the contents at Rs.7,77,600/- and Specifically Covered Property at Rs.11,84,000/- in all Rs.19,61,000/- for the period from 10.2.2011 to 9.2.2012. On 10.4.2011 at about 10.00 p.m. when the shop was closed fire broke out in the premises and the total contents in the premises were burnt into ashes. One Mr. Vaseem gave information about the fire accident t...
Dr. Manjul Chaudhary and Others Vs. M/S Aliens Developers(P) Ltd, Rep. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. Since all the four complaints bear similar facts and obtained from same circumstances, they are being disposed of by a common order. C.C.No.147 of 2013 is taken as lead case. 2. The complaint is filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, complaining deficiency in service against the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and claimed a sum of Rs.15,67,500/- towards the amount paid and an amount of 2.12.2009 to 31.08.2013/-towards interest and for subsequent interest @ 24%p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till payment and a sum of Rs.10,00,,000/- towards compensation as also the costs of Rs.50,000/-. 3. The opposite parties entered into development agreement under documents bearing nos.23198/2006 and 23230/2006 on 23.06.2007 and development cum general power of attorney in favour of the first opposite party-company with the owners of land for development of their land measuring Ac.19.26 gts., in Sy.No.384, 385 and 426A at Telapur ...
Surjeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab Through Deputy Commissioner, Barnala ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant, against the order dated 10.9.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which his complaint against the respondents/opposite parties was dismissed. 2. The facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant was a consumer of the opposite parties and was using electric connection, bearing account No.S64SP250112K and the meter was installed outside his premises. He had been regularly paying the bills for the consumption of electricity. However, 4-5 months back from the date of filing the complaint, the employees of the opposite parties shifted the said meter from its actual site to 20-25 feet ahead upon a pole installed by them. In the month of August, 2011, the employees of the opposite parties told him that his electric meter No.223161 would be checked by them and the same was liable to be changed. They directed him to depo...
Dilraj Singh Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.10.2013, 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 husband of the complainant took a life Insurance Policy from Opposite Party No.1, valid for the period from 14.01.2010 to 14.01.2035, for the sum assured of Rs.3.00 lacs. The premium of Rs.17,902/-, was paid to Opposite Party No.2, an agent of Opposite Party No.1, on 14.01.2010. The life assured/husband of the complainant, who was working as Software Engineer, in U.S.A., died on 26.06.2011 at The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore City, U.S.A., while he was under treatment there. Thereafter, the complainant being the nominee of her husband, in the said Policy, lodged the claim, with Opposite Party No.1, on 15.12.2011, alongwith all requisite docume...
Mondi Murali Krishna Vs. Maijo Joseph, Managing Director Georg Maijo I ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member 1. The complaint is filed seeking for replacement of Combine Harvester Model 41Z 2.0 with new one of the same model or to refund the cost of the Harvester, an amount of Rs.12,96,750/-, Rs.5,00,000/- towards value of Lorry purchased for transportation of the combine harvester from one place to another place and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.18,50,000/- towards loss of earnings due to non-working of the Combine Harvester. 2. The complainant submitted that he purchased Combine Harvester Model 41z 2.0 from the opposite party no. on 30.12.2011 for Rs.12,96,750/- and on the same day the opposite parties no.1 to 3 delivered the combine harvester to the complainant. The complainant got insured the combine harvester machine with M/s United Insurance Company Ltd on payment of premium of Rs.13,903/- for the period of the insurance from 19.01.2012 to 18.01.2013. 3. The complainant submitted that the opposite parties arranged for an operator and o...
M/S Vamshi Builders, Rep. by Sri T.Raj Kumar Singh Vs. Vasu Apartment ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The first opposite party is the appellant. The respondent no.1 - filed complaint seeking for delivery of possession of pent house constructed on the terrace of Vasu Apartments, Plot No. 18 and 19, Kalyannagar, Gaddiannaram, Dilsuknagar, Hyderabad and restraining the appellant from collecting rent on the pent house for the period from 01.01.2013 and restraining the appellant from causing nuisance in the building and further restraining the appellant from interfering with the meetings held by the respondent no.1. 2. The respondent no.1 filed application in I.A.No. 170 of 2013 seeking permission to amend the complaint by deleting relief nos. 2 to 4. Thereafter, the respondent no.1 filed petition, I.A.No. 31 of 2013 seeking for direction to restrain the revision petitioner from interfering with its meetings till the disposal of the complaint. 3. The revision petitioner filed counter contending that the relief sought for cannot be granted as ...
Premraj Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
N. Arumugam, Member: This is a complaint filed by Shri Premraj Baburaoji Daware filed against the O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for non-settlement of insurance claim for the Luxury Bus bearing No. MH-31-AP-5600 met with accident on Nagpur Amravati Highway. The facts of the case in brief as below 1. The complainant is the owner of the above said bus and it is insured with the O.P. for sum assured Rs.12,60,000/- for the period 10.10.2004 to 09.10.2005 vide policy No. 272200/31/04/6304606. The said bus met with an accident on 18.02.2005 on Nagpur “ Amravati Highway with the truck coming from Amravati. The complainant filed the FIR with the Karanja Police Station, Dist. Wardha about the accident. The complainant informed the insurance co. about the occurrence accident. Accordingly insurance company deputed licensed insurance survey namely Shri H S Lamba. The surveyor visited the spot and assessed the damaged and submitted the preliminary report of the accident to the insurance co. Later ...
Guru Nanak Hospital, Opposite Gurudwara Tarn Taran Sahib, Bathinda Roa ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party No.4 against the order dated 2.8.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which the complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant was partly allowed and this opposite party was directed to pay Rs.9,020/- to the complainant as expenses incurred by him on his treatment and Rs.2,000/- on account mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which interest @ 9% per annum was ordered on the total amount of Rs.11,020/-. 2. The facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant insured himself with opposite party No.2 and 3 through opposite party No.1 under Bhai Ghaniya Sehat Sewa Scheme by depositing the requisite premium. Opposite party No.2 issued policy No.400104/46/08/85/00000096 which was valid for the period from 1.10.2008 to 30...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »