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.
The Citizen Cooperative Society Limited Rep. by Its Manager and Anothe ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The appeals, F.A.No.910, 911 and 912 of 2012 are filed by the opposite party- society whereas the appeal F.A.Nos.288 of 2013, 296 of 2013 and 297 of 2013 are filed by the complainants. The matter involves same facts and similar circumstances and as such all the appeals are being disposed of by common order. F.A.No.911 of 2013 is taken as lead case.2. The respondents filed complaint claiming an amount of Rs.12,68,568/- towards maturity value of deposits and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,00,000/- towards costs. 3. The District Forum awarded a sum of Rs.12,68,568/- - towards maturity value with interest @6% and an amount of Rs.6,000/- towards costs. 4. The case of the respondents is that they deposited amounts with the appellant-society under Akshay Scheme?. An amount of Rs.6,30,288/- was deposited on 10.11.2005 in the name of the first respondent and the maturity value of the deposits after period of 57 mo...
Dr. E. Regina D/O.E.Showri Reddy Occ:gynecologist and Obestrician Mana ...
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
T. Ashok Kumar, Member This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party against the order in C.C.No.55/2010 dated 13-2-2012 on the file of District Forum, Medak at Sangareddy. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder: The brief facts of the complaint are as under: On 04-10-2008 the complainant approached opposite party doctor at Sangareddy town when she was third month pregnant and the OP doctor prescribed her some medicines and asked her to come on 17-10-2008 for check up. Accordingly on 17-10-2008 when the complainant went to the said opposite party doctor with complaint of spotting, she entrusted her to a male junior doctor and nurse for treatment who had no experience. After treatment she started bleeding and an injection was given to control the bleeding but to no avail and the foetus was aborted without her consent by collecting Rs.9,100/- from her. The complainant went into shock and was advised to go to Hyderabad for further treatm...
Navneet Jha Vs. Branch Manager, Magma Shrachi Finance Limited, Branch ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
(Order) R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 27.07.2012, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kabirdham / Kawardha (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No.04/2012. By the impugned judgment, the learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the complainant/appellant and awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the O.P./respondent as cost of litigation and advocate fees from the complainant/appellant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case of the complainant/appellant before the District Forum are as under:- 3. That the complainant/appellant is owner of a vehicle Tata Truck LPT 2515 CEX bearing registration No. C.G.04-J.A.-3730. The complainant/appellant purchased the said vehicle with the help of financial assistance by obtaining loan from the O.P./respondent to the tune of Rs.11,25,000/- and the instalments of the loan were to be repaid in 56 monthly instalments. The agreement was effective from 20.07.2007 to 20.02.20...
Jagraj Singh and Another Vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd and Others
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
(Order) Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The appellants/complainants (hereinafter called œthe complainants?) have filed the present appeal against the order dated 13.6.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No. 432 dated 7.6.2010 vide which the complaint filed by the complainants was dismissed. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainant on the allegations that he was having saving bank account with the Ops in their Nabha branch having saving account No. 01561530002547. In the month of October, 2007, the bank officials approached the complainant to convert his amount lying in the Saving Bank account in the shape of FDRs. On 4/5.10.2007, the complainant alongwith his son Jagraj Singh visited the bank premises of OP No. 1 and the Bank Manager asked the dealing hand to apprise the complainant with the saving scheme, who suggested to invest in the insurance plan...
Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited (iffco) Vs. Ram Swaroop
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
1. Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President (Oral)”This appeal has been filed by Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited, Service Centre, Kalanwali (for short IFFCO) against the order dated October 24th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (for short District Forum) whereby, an amount of Rs. 42,000 was awarded to Ram Sawroop-complainant (respondent herein), on account of loss that occurred to his crop, Rs. 5,000 as compensation for harassment and Rs. 550 as litigation expenses. The amount awarded was to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failure to which interest at the rate of 9% per annum was awarded from the date of filing complaint, that is, October 26th, 2012 till payment. 2. Respondent had purchased 5 kgs of Guar Seed against payment of Rs. 2,000 from the appellant, which was sown in his field. The seed was found to be defective. He approached the office of Deputy Director, Agriculture, Sirsa. The Deputy ...
Mrs. Veeramanemma and Others Vs. the Branch Manager State Bank of Indi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The unsuccessful complainants are the appellants. The first appellant is the wife and the appellants no.2 to 4 are the children of L.Nagishetty who during his life time availed loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from the respondent no.1-bank by mortgaging plot bearing number 64 situated at Sadashivpet town and thereafter constructed a house in the plot. 2. The appellants submitted that the 3rd appellant is the co-applicant for the loan transaction and as per the Group Insurance Scheme master policy was issued showing the appellant no.3 as the insured instead of his father due to lapse on the part of the respondent no.1-bank. The respondents have not adjusted the insured sum towards the outstanding due of the loan account and even after notice was issued therefor, the respondents instead of adjusting the sum assured under the insurance policy, they got issued reply to the notice of the appellants. 3. The respondent no.1-bank resisted the claim on the ...
Shareef Khan Vs. Dr. Parveen Kulsum
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
(T. Ashok Kumar, Member) This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant as against the orders dated 28-12-2012 in C.C.No.777/2011 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad wherein the complaint was dismissed holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows: The complainant was having cataract in his right eye and therefore on the advice of his friends, he approached the opposite party, who is an eye specialist at Majestic Hospital, Hyderabad. The opposite party conducted several tests including sugar test on the complainant and since the sugar levels were high, the complainant was advised to come to him after the sugar levels are normal. On 21-12-2009, the complainant approached the opposite party at the said hospital for treatment and paid Rs.7,500/- fee as demanded by the opposite party and later the opp...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd, Vs. Santosh Singh
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-20-2014
(Order) R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.01.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum"), in Complaint Case No.32/2012. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, allowed the complaint of the complainant/respondent and directed the O.P./appellant (Insurance Company) to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant along with interest @ 06% p.a. from the filing of the complaint till date of payment and also to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation within period of two months from the date of order, otherwise the amount would be payable along with interest @ 9% p.a. 2. In nutshell the facts of the case of the complainant/respondent before the District Forum are : that the complainant/respondent is owner of vehicle Bolaro bearing registration No.C.G.09-5277 and the said vehicle was insured with the O.P./appellant. The insurance of the vehicle was effectiv...
Baljaganjot Singh Vs. Narula T.V. Centre and Another
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 12.3.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib (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 purchased a TV, make Ondia, 29? from opposite party No.1 for Rs.19,990/- through bill No.46 dated 15.4.2009, which was manufactured by opposite party No.2. It was assured by opposite party No.1 that the TV was of good quality and would give best results. But it started giving problems right from the date of purchase and the same defect continued till the filing of the complaint. Despite repeated requests, it was neither repaired nor replaced with a new one. He, alongwith, Gurmeet Singh son of Nachhattar Singh, visited the shop of opposite party No.1 and asked it to either replace the TV set or to return the mone...
House of Fitness Private Ltd. Vs. Gaurav Kohli and Others
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 29.10.2013, 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 no.1) and directed the Opposite Parties (one of which is now the appellant/Opposite Party No.2), 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 OPs are directed to refund Rs.8491/- to the complainant. They are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and litigation costs. The liability of the OPs shall be joint and several. This order be complied with by the OPs, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay the above total awarded amount of Rs.13,491/- along with penal interest @12% per...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »