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.
Dr. Rinoj Veterinary Surgeon, Veterninary Hospital, Rajakkadu Vs. E.K. ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-18-2014
Mrs. A. Radha : Member This appeal is preferred by the opposite party in C.C.No.164/12 on the file of CDRF, Idukki and the complainant is the respondent. The Forum Below directed the opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.750/- as cost to the complainant. 2. The complainant is a beneficiary of the Goat Rearing Project for Scheduled Caste launched by the Grama Panchayat. The complainant remitted Rs.3,000/- for 2 lambs on 23/02/2012 along with the Insurance premium of Rs.350/-. One of the lambs died due to disease and the matter was informed to the opposite party who treated the lamb. As instructed by the opposite party a photograph of the carcass with the owner of the goat and the ear-tag without breaking from the ear was brought by the complainant was rejected and deliberately harassed the complainant and could not get the insurance claim which caused severe mental agony, financial loss and inconvenience to the complainant. This complaint is filed for Rs.4,850/- and co...
Har Auto Pvt. Ltd., Har Avenue, Kannothumchal, Kannur, Represented Sen ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-18-2014
Mrs. A. Radha : Member Aggrieved by the Order passed in C.C No.256/12 on the file of CDRF, Kasargod the opposite party preferred this appeal. The Forum Below allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation together with a cost of Rs.3,000/-. 2. The complainant purchased an Alto Car from the opposite party on 05/09/2012. The allegation of the complainant is that he was not provided with the basic accessories like mat, flap and centre lock. It is stated in the complaint that he was assured to provide the accessories on the next day itself. The complainant is a physically handicapped man and could not travel without the help of others. Though several times contacted the opposite party over phone the basic accessories were not given which caused mental agony and financial loss against which the complaint is filed for Rs.50,000/-. 3. Though the opposite party accepted the notice no one appeared or filed version to substantiate the case. Henc...
Har Auto Pvt. Ltd., Har Avenue, Kannothumchal, Kannur, Represented Sen ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-18-2014
Mrs. A. Radha : Member Aggrieved by the Order passed in C.C No.256/12 on the file of CDRF, Kasargod the opposite party preferred this appeal. The Forum Below allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation together with a cost of Rs.3,000/-. 2. The complainant purchased an Alto Car from the opposite party on 05/09/2012. The allegation of the complainant is that he was not provided with the basic accessories like mat, flap and centre lock. It is stated in the complaint that he was assured to provide the accessories on the next day itself. The complainant is a physically handicapped man and could not travel without the help of others. Though several times contacted the opposite party over phone the basic accessories were not given which caused mental agony and financial loss against which the complaint is filed for Rs.50,000/-. 3. Though the opposite party accepted the notice no one appeared or filed version to substantiate the case. Henc...
E.L. Francis, M/S. Three Star Industries, Thangamani Junction, Koorkan ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-18-2014
Mrs. Santhamma Thomas: Member Feeling aggrieved of the impugned order, this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred by the Appellant-Appellant against the judgment passed by the Learned District Forum, Thrissur (Hereinafter the Learned Forum), order dated 22/11/2012in CC No. 559/08 filed on 17/07/2008, wherein the Learned Forum Below has dismissed the complaint on contest without any cost. 2. Brief facts is that appellant took a loan from the 2nd respondent in the year 1980 for an amount of Rs.10,000/- for business purpose. The loan was collaterally secured by an equitable mortgage of the property belonging to Mr. Joseph, father of one of the partners Mr. Thomas. In 1983 the loan amount was enhanced to Rs.25,000/- and then the collateral security was substituted with 14 cents of land in Survey No.183/7 of Kanimangalam Village, which was devolved upon the Appellant as per will No.5/1975. The will and the prior deeds which are Pattayam No.1922/1975...
Badjate and Company Vs. Fazalbhai S. HussaIn and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against order dtd.29.12.2008 passed by District Forum, Nagpur in CC/08/139 by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the original complainants as set out in complaint in brief is that they are having relationship of husband and wife inter se and that the original opposite party (for short O.P.) No.1 is the Sub-broker and O.P.No.2 is the Chief broker and the O.P.No.3 is the controlling authority over the share purchase transactions, brokers and Sub-brokers both the complainants are aged persons and they invested their money in share sale-purchase transactions. They did the said transactions through O.P.No.1 and they also opened D-mat Account. They purchased 600 shares of ICICI Bank for the amount mentioned in the complaint. But the O.P.No.1 did not deliver 300 shares out of the same to the complainants. The complainants then asked the O.P.No.1 to sale 100 shares of Lupin Laboratory, which were purchased ...
Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited and Another Vs. ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
(Order) Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The appellants/OPs(hereinafter called œthe OPs?) have filed the present appeal against the order dated 11.4.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.137 dated 23.2.2010 vide which the complaint was allowed and the Ops were directed to execute the sale deed / conveyance deed of the allotted plot to the complainant at the price of the plot mentioned as Rs. 26,35,512/- in allotment letter dated 20.12.1996 and complainant shall have to bear stamp duty for getting registered the plot. In case the notification of the Punjab Government providing for registration of the plot allotted at the rates prevalent at the time of allotment found not in force then difference will be paid by the Ops. They will further pay compensation of Rs. 30,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 11,000/-. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainant a...
Nahar Textiles Private Limited Vs. Reliance General Insurance Company ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: 1. Complainant “ Nahar Textiles Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the œInsured?) is a Company incorporated under Companies Act 1956, engaged in manufacturing and export of textile fabrics and garments. Second hand Sulzer Shuttles Projective Weaving Machines totaling 24 were imported by sea route from the Port of Louis (Mauritius) to JNPT India. First such lot of fourteen machines was shipped through MC Easy Freight and Co. Ltd., the forwarding Agents through the ocean vessel Voyage No. MAERSK WINDHOEK918 on 02.07.2009. Insured with a view to avail Letter of Credit (hereinafter referred to as œL/C? in short) facility with Bank of India, Chakala Branch, Andheri East, Mumbai, approached the Bankers, who imposed condition to insure the machines and deposit risk Cover Note with them. Therefore, for providing insurance cover to the imported machines was availed under Marine Policy Cover Note to insure risk upto Rs.2,40,00,000/- (Rupees 240 ...
Subhash Chander Kochar Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of Post and Telegra ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
Gurdev Singh, President: 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 16.6.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short, œDistrict Forum?), vide which the complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for issuance of following directions to the opposite parties was dismissed:- i) to credit the sum of Rs.70,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% till the realization of that amount; ii) to issue duplicate copy of the PPF account showing entry of Rs.70,000/- having been deposited on 5.12.2008; iii) to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental tension, loss and harassment suffered by him; iv) to pay Rs.11,000/- as cost of the complaint. 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that he was having PPF account bearing No.627 since 1989 with respondent No.4/opposite party No.4 and had been depositing different amounts in that account through respondent No.5/opposite...
Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited Through Its Executive Engineer E ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This revision petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the order dated 29.03.2011 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 115 of 2011, whereby the District Forum has stayed the recovery proceedings in terms of notice dated 10.03.2011 issued by the electricity department. Vide the impugned order, the District Forum has admitted the consumer complaint for decision on merit. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant “ M/s Uttaranchal Filament (India) is an industrial unit and has been allotted land by the State of Uttarakhand for setting up an industrial unit. The complainant applied with the electricity department for sanction of 700KW electricity load. Later on, the complainant got its electricity load reduced to 400KW on 23.09.2008. It is alleged that the monthly electricity bill of the complainant comes to Rs....
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another Vs. Rattan Singh
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
(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 8.4.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.832 dated 6.12.2010 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed with the direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from 11.3.2010 till realization and pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental tension, agony and litigation expenses. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainant(hereinafter called œthe complainant?) against the opposite parties on the allegations that he got insured his Mahindra Bolero Maxi Truck/Pick Up vehicle Model 2009 bearing registration No. PB-13-V-7189 for a sum of Rs. 3,23,000/- on 7.12.2009 vide cover note No. 760830 for the pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »