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.
Ajay Kr. Ghosh Vs. Sribas Dutta and Others
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
Mridula Roy, Member: The instant appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 22.03.2012 passed by Ld. District Forum, North 24 Pgs. in C.C. Case No. 279/2009 allowing the same in part on contest with cost against the O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 and exparte against the O.P. No. 4 without cost directing the O.Ps to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the shop room in question in favour of the Complainant upon receiving the balance consideration money as per agreement dated 27.07.2006 within two months from the date of order, i.d. the Complainant may execute the order through the Forum, further directing the O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards litigation cost to the Complainant within two months from the date of order. Being aggrieved by this order the Complainant has preferred the instant appeal. Case of the Complainant (Appellant herein) in brief, is that he was a tenant in respect of a shop room having an area of 126 sq. ft. situated with the lan...
National Insurance Company Limited and Another Vs. P.K. and Company, N ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
(Order) Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This order will dispose of two above mentioned appeals. Both the appeals are arising out of the impugned order dated 16.11.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.90 dated 10.8.2011 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was partly allowed with the direction to the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 4,71,586/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainant (hereinafter called œthe complainant?) on the allegations that he was running the business of supplying rice husk to various industries and had obtained the insurance policy from opposite party for Rs. 60 lacs vide cover note Nos. 102449 dated 19.11.2009, 104169 dated 4.6.2010 w.e.f. 19.11.2009 to 18.11.2010 and 4.6.2010 to 3.6.2011, respectively. Due to heavy rains in the 4th week of July, 2010, ...
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. W. Nandabai and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
S.B. Sawarkar, Member: 1. The instant appeal is filed by the original opposite party (herein called as appellant for brevity) against the judgment of the Washim District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (In short hereinafter called as forum) Judgment dt. 29/10/2010 in complaint Case no. 58/2010.2. Vide above order the forum granted the policy compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with 9% p.a. interest to the complainant (Now respondent for brevity) from 24/5/2010 and expenses of Rs.2000/- to be paid by the appellant, Oriental Insurance Company. 3. The brief facts of the case of the complainants (the legal heirs of the insured Subhash Gaikwad) are that, the insured deceased Subhash Gaikwad, R/o., Washim was a teacher and he had taken a Janata Personal Accident Policy from the appellant for the period 30/6/05 to 29/6/2010 of Rs. 1,00,000/- lack. When the policy was operative on 26/8/2008, the deceased insured on the way of his school fell in the well and died. The police was informed who regis...
Raghu Exports (India) Ltd, Vs. Dhl Express (i) Pvt. Ltd and Another
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
Gurdev Singh, President: 1. Not feeling satisfied with the order dated 22.9.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala Camp at Jalandhar (in short, œDistrict Forum?), vide which the respondents/opposite parties were directed to pay an amount equal to US$ 100 on account of deficiency in service and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation, the appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal for the enhancement of that compensation as claimed in the complaint. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, averring therein that it set up a new unit in the year 2007 for manufacturing of leather sofa covers after spending huge amount and for procuring the business, it used to send the samples to its customers abroad. It booked one consignment consisting of a box containing leather sofa cover kit valuing US$ 150 with opposite party No.1 in its office at Jalandhar, vide Invoice dated 20.6.2...
Debrupayan Housing Co. Ltd. Vs. Bandana Barai and Another
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Barasat, North 24-Parganas in case no.CC 256 of 2011 allowing the complaint and passing the order as follows: œHence ordered, that the complainant be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs.3,000/- against the O.P. O.P is directed to hand over possession of the plot as described in the schedule of agreement to sale dated 09.02.07 and to execute sale deed and register the same within one month from the date of this order, failing which for each days delay a sum of Rs.400/- per day shall be assessed as interest for non compliance and disobeyance of the Forums order and till execution and registration of the sale deed and said assessed total amount shall be deposited by the O.P to State Consumer Welfare Fund. O.P is also imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- for adopting unfair trade practice in this case only to deprive the bonafide consumer to transfer the ...
Shakuntla Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 15.6.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which her complaint was dismissed. 2. The facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant was the consumer of the opposite party having electric connection No.GC21/212A with sanctioned load of 25 Kws. This connection was installed at her residence. The electric bills were being raised by the opposite party on the actual consumption as per the meter readings which were being paid by her regularly. No amount was outstanding against the said connection. In the year, 2008, the said electric meter, which was an electromechanical one, was changed with an electronic meter by the opposite party. The opposite party charged Rs.70,697/- vide memo No.430 dated 18.2.2009 from her on account of removed meter having been found œsticky? with effect from Augus...
Sat Pal Kansal Vs. Estate Officer
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.12.2013, 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 Sh.Inder Chand Aggarwal, original allottee of House No.405, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh, had submitted the fresh revised plan, on 03.12.1991, by depositing a sum of Rs.800/-, as plan security, vide receipt No.360828 dated 03.12.1991, issued by the Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh. The building was constructed, as per plan, in the year 1991. In the year 2009, the owner of the adjoining House No.403, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh, had made some illegal construction, by destroying the elevation of House No.405, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh. Thus, Sh.Inder Chand Aggarwal was compelled to seek the information and documents, including the copies of latest ...
Sri Ashok Chakraborty and Another Vs. the Sr. Post Master General, Ser ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
Jagannath Bag, Ld. Member: These two appeals arise out of one and the same Order , dated 20.04.2012, of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata Unit-II in CDF / Unit “II / CC No. 769 / 2009 whereby Ld. Forum below allowed the complaint on contest with the cost against OP Nos. 1-6 and exparte against OP No. 7 and dismissed against OP No.8. Both the appeals are taken up together for adjudication keeping in view the fact that there was one original complaint which , briefly stated , was as follows: The Complainants, Sri Asok Chakrobarty and Smt Uma Chakrobarty , had jointly opened three MIS Accounts (No.8017575 dt. 12.11.2005 , No. 8017853 dt. 25.11.2005 and No. 8019375 dt. 11.02.2006) by depositing Rs. 1,05,000/- for each at Serampur Head Post Office, Hooghly , in November 2005 and February 2006 through an agent, namely, Smt. Minati Bhattacharya. One RD Account bearing No. 4005937 was also opened on 08.11.2005 by the said Complainants through the same agent . T...
Gursewak Singh and Others Vs. Rajpura Pesticides and Another
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/complainants for modification of the order dated 11.8.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which the complaint filed by them was partly allowed and a penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the respondents/opposite parties was imposed jointly and severally for mis-representing the seed of paddy 1121 as Basmati PUSA 1121. Litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- were also awarded. 2. The facts, as stated in the complaint, are that in the month of May, 2009 complainants approached opposite party No.1 for purchasing of seed of Basmati 1121. The concerned Salesman/Manager/Proprietor of opposite party No.1 assured them that the quality of the seed available with them was Basmati 1121 which was prepared and packed by opposite party No.2 and it was the best quality seed which would give more yield as compared to other varieties. Lured by the assurance given...
Omaxe Limited Through Chairman and Managing and Others Vs. Parveen Kum ...
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member (Oral): 1. The delay of 2 days in filing of the present appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application. 2. Omaxe Limited and others-opposite parties (appellants herein) are in appeal against the order dated October 4th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short District Forum). 3. Parveen Kumar Sodhi-complainant (respondent herein) booked a flat with the appellants in their upcoming project namely œOMAXE HILLS, FARIDABAD? Tower œRICHMOND? vide application Annexure A-10. The respondent paid Rs.10.00 lacs in March, 2005. On the asking of appellants, the respondent again paid a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- in July, 2006 and another sum of Rs.2,40,000/- again in July, 2006. The appellants allotted flat No.604 measuring 148.64 Sq. Meters (16090 Square feet) on 6th floor in œRICHMOND? Tower and Buyers Agreement Annexure A-1 was executed in May, 2007. Till 2009, the respondent had paid the amounts as and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »