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.
State Bank of India Vs. Rajesh Kumar Pandey
Court: Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Ranchi
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
Mr. Justice R.K. Merathia, President- 1. Heard Mr. M. Kumar learned counsel appearing for the Opposite party/appellant (Bank for short) on limitation as well as admission matter. The delay of four days in filing this appeal is condoned. 2. After hearing Mr. Kumar for the Bank and carefully going through the impugned order and the other documents, we find no merit in this appeal. 3. According to the complainant/Respondent/Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, after crediting Rs. 50,000/-, the Bank issued a Fixed Deposit receipt no. TDR 696493 in his favour but the Bank is not paying the maturity value of the Fixed Deposit. 4. According to the Bank due to heavy rush and by mistake/inadvertence, TDR was issued and at the time of maturity, the proof of credit of such amount could not be found. Therefore, the Bank was not obliged to pay the maturity amount. Mr. Kumar submitted that the complainant did not produce any documents to show that he got the said amount credited. 5. It is not the case of the Ba...
Hema Gadodia Vs. Calcutta Medical Research Institute and Others
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President. This order relates to the Miscellaneous Application 402 of 2013 filed by the OP No.5 praying for expunction of the name of OP No.5 and dismissing the complaint on the ground of want of pecuniary jurisdiction. It has been submitted by the Learned Counsel for the OP No.5 that there is no basis of the allegation against the OP No.5. It is contended that the total claim as made out in the complaint exceeds Rs.1 crore which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. It is submitted that the OP No.5 unnecessarily dragged in this proceeding without alleging any deficiency in service against OP No.5. The Learned Counsel for the OP Nos.1 to 3 has submitted that the complaint is barred by limitation, in as much as, the treatment was done in the year 2009 and the complaint was filed on 25/07/12. It is contended that the total claim of the Complainant would exceed Rs.1 crore and the case is not maintainable. It is submitted that the treatment was ma...
Nikode Parvathi @ Mangala and Another Vs. the Asst. Engineer, Apnpdcl ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
This is an appeal preferred by the complainants dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the District Forum, Adilabad vide order dated 13-3-2013 in CC.No.103/2011 and seeking enhancement of compensation. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complainant are referred to here under. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: On 14-7-2009 at 15 hours one Nikode Shankar, aged about 24 years who is the husband of the first complainant and father of the second complainant minor was going to his agricultural field located in the out skirts of Mogaddhagad village along with his bull worth of Rs 20,000/- on the way near the agricultural land of Nandu Gavari live electrical wire being maintained by the Department of the opposite parties snapped, he and his bull came in to contact with it. Consequently the said Shankar and his bull died on the spot due to electrocution and it so happened due to careless and negligent acts of the officials of the opposite parties 1...
Varghese Mannumkal Vs. C.J. Harikumar
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
Mrs. A. Radha : Member Appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.166/12 on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta, who preferred this appeal. The Forum Below dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant had not taken steps for adducing any evidence and had not accepted the receipts as the authenticity for allowing the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant was a chittal in a 10 month chitty having Sala of Rs.50,000/- conducted by the opposite party. The 1st instalment of Rs.5,000/- was paid on 14/09/2011. The entire 10 instalments were paid and the last payment was on 10/07/2012. It is stated in the complaint that the pass book of the chitty was handed over to the opposite party for verification of the account and the complainant was advised to come on the very next day to collect the amount. When the complainant approached the opposite party the next day itself to collect the chitty amount, the opposite party was not ready to disburse the chitty amount ...
Bfl Exports Ltd. Vs. Shukla Basu
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I in case no.CC 290 of 2010 allowing the complaint and directing the OP to refund the sum of s.35,000/- and to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of R.5,000/- to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of communication of the order, in default an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum till realisation. The case of the complainant/respondent, in short, is that the Complainant is a bonafide registered share holder of 1000 equity shares, face value of each being Rs.10/- of BFL Exports Ltd., 14, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata-700 001 for which she had to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- only to the said company, the premium price of each share being Rs.35/- in the month of February, 1996. All the share certificates have been issued in the joint names of the Complainant Shukla Basu and her father-in-law Manindra Nath Basu who made appli...
Niteen Sudhakar Yelikar Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.8.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Aurangabad partly allowing consumer complaint No.476/07 directing appellant/opponent LIC to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.2000/- and Rs.500/- towards cost of the proceeding. (For the sake of brevity appellant is herein after referred as complainant and respondent as the opponent) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- On 28.12.2001 complainant had obtained LIC policy No.982105943 from opponent for sum assured of Rs.1,75,000/- for a term of 25 years. As per terms and conditions of the policy, complainant policy holder was entitled to get 20% amount of policy on completion of five years period and accordingly after completion of five years period he submitted his claim for 20% amount i.e. Rs.35,000/-. However, the concern officer of opponent avoided to pay his 20% claim amount and lastly on 28.2.2007 paid 15% am...
Varghese Benny and Another Vs. Philip Mathew
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
V.V. Jose : Member This appeal is filed by the opposite parties in CC.No.171/2012 in the CDRF, Pathanamthitta. 2. The case of the complainant in the above CC in brief is as follows. 3. The complaint was filed by Sri.Thomas Mathew as the power of attorney holder of Sri.Philip Mathew. On May 2011 complainant entrusted the interior work of his new building to the opposite parties, who carrying on business of interior decoration under the name and style œ Civic Interiors . In pursuance of the mutual agreement complainant paid an amount of Rs.25000/- to the opposite parties, on a promise to start the carpentry work by early November. They started the work on 27.11.2011. The workers were North Indians, who are not capable of doing carpentry work. Complainant provided free accommodation to the workers on the request of opposite parties. Complainant paid Rs.25000/- again on request of the opposite party. The work done was defective and negligent, as no supervision, resulted in wastage of...
Branch Manager Hdfc Bank Ltd. and Another Vs. Subinay Dey
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in case no.CC 50 of 2010 allowing the complaint with cost of Rs.5,000/- and directing the OPs to pay Rs.3,849/- to the Complainant and issue no due certificate in favour of the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order. The OPs were directed to return the post dated cheques to the Complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the harassment and mental agony of the Complainant and in default of the aforesaid amount the interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue thereon till realisation. The case of the complainant/respondent, in short, is that he purchased a car by taking loan from the OPs. The EMI was fixed at Rs.6,972/- which was paid till 24/09/09. The car was delivered in January, 2008. Eight blank cheques were delivered to the OPs by the Complainant. On 24/10/09 the OP No.2 with the help of some anti-social elements forcibly reposses...
The Manager, Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and Another ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.04.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ahmednagar, partly allowing consumer complaint No.71/2008 directing the appellant/opponent Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company to pay to the complainant compensation and cost of the proceeding by crediting the same amount in the loan account of the complainant and to clear the loan amount etc. (for the sake of brevity the appellant is hereinafter referred as the œopponent? and the respondent as the œcomplainant?) 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that, the opponent Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited is a Finance Company. In the month of Nov.2003 the complainant borrowed loan Rs.1,54,000/- from the opponent finance company for the purpose of purchasing vehicle i.e. Mahindra pick up Transport Tempo bearing registration No. MH.17-K-8021. It was agreed to repay the loan with interest by 36 monthly ins...
United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. P. Gireesh
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
K. Chandradas Nadar : Judicial Member Appellant was the opposite party in CC.No.307/2011 in the CFRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant / respondent in this appeal was a member of Unihealth Insurance Scheme of the United India Insurance Company (opposite party) from March 2000. He joined the scheme through the SBT Engineering College Branch, Thiruvananthapuram. The insured amount was Rs.1 lakh. The complainant alleged that he was admitted at the Ananthapuri Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram on 12.07.2013 for surgery and was discharged from the hospital on 15.07.2013. Ananthapuri Hospital is a hospital approved under the scheme. The opposite party at the time of discharge of the complainant from the hospital had denied his claim and he was forced to remit the bill amount of Rs.32,780/-. The complainant took up the matter with the insurance company. He was told to submit fresh claim and accordingly he submitted a revised claim on 20.07.2011. On 20.08.2011 he received cheque for Rs.15,000/- ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »