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.
Sukhtar Singh Buttar and Another Vs. Sushma Buildtech Ltd.
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. The facts, in brief, are that the Opposite Party, which is a Builder, in its brochure, had given details of the project, launched by it, in Sushma Urban Views?, located at Gazipur, NAC, Zirakpur, Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali, Punjab. Believing the version of the Opposite Party and the sample flat shown, the complainants made up their mind and booked a residential apartment, C-601 on 6th Floor in Wing C measuring 1680 sq. ft. (super area) in Sushma Urban Views located at Gazipur, NAC Zirakpur, Tehsil and District Mohali after paying 10% basic sale price amounting to Rs.3,52,000/- as earnest money. It was stated that letter of allotment dated 23.07.2010 (Annexure C-1) was issued by the Opposite Party. It was further stated that Apartment Buyers Agreement dated 23.08.2010 (Annexure C-2) was signed. The complainants obtained a housing loan of Rs.28,55,000/- from IDBI Bank to be directly paid to the Opposite Party, based on construction linked payment plan. The loan...
Branch Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India Atmakur, Kurnool Di ...
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 has filed appeal challenging the order of the District Forum on the premise that the District Forum had not appreciated evidence in proper perspective and that it ought to have passed the order without being influenced by observation made by this Commission in F.A.No. 125 of 2009. It is contended that this Commission had not recorded any finding as to the evidence of doctor and treatment undergone by the insured and that appellant filed affidavit of the investigator along with medical record and it examined doctor Ram of NIMS as RW1 and produced documents, ExA8 to A11. 2. The case of the respondent is that her husband during his life time obtained life insurance policy bearing number 650474520 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, policy bearing number 652179312 for Rs.50,000/-, policy bearing number 652176099 for Rs.20,000/-, policy bearing number 650365141 for Rs.20,000/-, and policy bearing number 650466690 for Rs.25,000/-, a...
G. Sridhar Goud Vs. Future General India Insurance Co.Ltd. and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The complaint is filed seeking for the sum assured under the insurance policy in respect of his Mercedes Benz car bearing registration number AP 09 UFTR 7226 and an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation and costs. 2. The complainant submitted that he got insured his Mercedes Benz car bearing registration number AP 09 UF T/R for the IDV of Rs.39,79,517/- with the opposite party no.1-insurance company. He has submitted that the clutch system, gear box and engine of the vehicle posed some problem or other from the date of its purchase and that the opposite party no.1 had not issued warranty card to him. The complainant submitted that on 22.08.2011 the engine of the car was switched off though there was no heavy rain and he had reported the problem along with the vehicle to the opposite party no.2 which opened job card for repair of the vehicle. 3. The complainant submitted that as the opposite party no.2 had not carried out the repa...
Dr. M. Balachander (Chairman) Sri Chandra Farms and Resorts India Ltd. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
Oral Order: (Gopalakrishna Tamada, President) The opposite party in Consumer Case No.230/2013 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad is the appellant and this appeal is filed assailing the order dated 13.09.2013 whereby the complaint filed by the respondent herein was allowed. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal will be referred to as they were arrayed in the complaint. The opposite party is the Chairman of Sri Chandra Farms and Resorts India Ltd and he is doing business in the real estate i.e. dividing plots and selling them to the willing purchasers. The complainant being attracted by the said advertisement given by the opposite party approached him in the month of November, 2008 for purchase of 150 square yards of plot for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,78,000/- which is to be paid periodically as per the terms and conditions of the opposite party. After payment of initial instalment, a Pass Book bearing No.521 was issued by the op...
Hira Automobiles Ltd Vs. Dr. Inderjit Singh and Others
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
Surinder Pal Kaur, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party No.1 against the order dated 25.4.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which the complaint of respondents No.1 and 2/complainants was allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- and directions were issued to opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.9284/- with interest @10% per annum from the date of the deposit i.e. 7.5.2010 till realization. Compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant was also awarded. 2. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party No.1 was the authorized dealer of the opposite party No.2., Complainant No.1 booked Car Maruti Suzuki, Dzire VXI in the name of his wife Smt. Daljinderpal Kaur, complainant No.2 with opposite party No.1 and paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in cash on 02.02.2010 against Receipt No.82731, which was counter signed by opposite party No.3; b...
Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Limited Vs. Sukhpreet Singh Kang
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 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 against the OP. Therefore, the complaint stands allowed. The OP is directed to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.14.00 lacs along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e. w.e.f. 12.9.2011 (Ann.C-2) till its actual payment, apart from paying litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-. 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 refund the said amount of Rs.14.00 lacs along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of dep...
Sreedhar Naidu Medikonda Vs. M/S Aditya Constructions Co., India P.Ltd ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member 1. The complaint is filed through General Power of Attorney seeking direction to the opposite parties for possession of Flat bearing number 1108 at Hafeezpet village of Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy district and claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation. 2. The averments of the complaint are that the entered into agreement with the opposite parties to purchase Flat bearing number 1108 in the multistoried building, Aditya Constructions Company, India Pvt Ltd situate at Aditya Imperial Heights, Florentine Block, in survey numbers 83,85, 86 and 87 at Hafeezpet village of Serililngampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy district for consideration of Rs.37,75,000/- of which 15% viz., Rs.5,66,250/- is payable at the time of booking and 80% is payable through bank or financial institution and the rest of the amount, i.e., 5% is payable at the time of delivery of possession. 3. The complainant submitted that he paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque ...
B.G. Sreedevi and Others Vs. Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
(T. Ashok Kumar, Member) This is a complaint filed U/s.17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainants 1 to 3 against opposite parties 1 to 4 alleging medical negligence claiming compensation of Rs.90 lakhs with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and costs. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: One Dr.B.G.Sridhar, who is the husband of the first complainant and father of 2nd and 3rd complainants was a qualified dental surgeon working in PHC Kodukur in Kurnool District and he is hereinafter referred to as the deceased. On 30-11-2009 while the deceased was travelling in his Santro car bearing No.AP 21Q 3600 from Kurnool to Hyderabad near Kondapur Police Station, Alampur Mandal of Mahaboobnagar District on NH 7 highway, he met with an accident and received injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Government hospital, Kurnool where he was treated as out patient. Since the injuries received by him were serious in nature, he was shifted to Gowrigopal Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Kurnoo...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Saroj Kanta Bansal
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
S.A. Siddiqui(Oral) 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act) against the judgment and order dated 22.3.2006 passed by District Forum (Central), Maharana Partap Bus Terminal, Mezzanine Floor, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 1035/03. 2. Relevant facts of the case are that complainant/respondent and her husband had taken Mediclaim Policy No. 8540597/2001 for a sum of Rs. 2 Lacs each for the period 5.3.2001 to 4.3.2002. During the validity period of the insurance policy, Mrs Saroj Kanta Bansal was admitted to Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre on 4.7.2001 for treatment of her heart disease (CAD), where she incurred an expenditure of Rs. 2,08,160/- which was paid on 14.4.01. Thereafter a claim was filed with the appellant/OP for reimbursement. When no proper response was received, complainant/respondent sent legal notice to OP/appellant. However, the OP/appellant repudiated the claim on the ground that the...
Darshan Singh Mittal Vs. JaIn Brothers, Kotkapura Road, Jaitu Tehsil J ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
Surinder Pal Kaur, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by the complainant against the order dated 09.11.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which his complaint was partly allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased one soft drink (Maaza) from opposite party No.1, vide bill No.2208 dated 6.11.2009 for Rs.216/-, which was manufactured by opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 is the authorized shop of opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3 is the concerned company of opposite party No.2 which is bottling the cold drinks manufactured by the later company. The complainant used to buy the soft drink from opposite party No.1 for himself and for his family. Opposite party No.2 had been advertising on T.V. regarding the good quality of their product. It was on the assurance given by opposite party No.1 that the cold drink manufactured by that company was of very good quality and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »