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 New India Assurance Company and Another Vs. Sugiya Devi and Others
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
Sri Debasis Bhattacharya, Member: Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment , dated 08.08.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Burdwan in Case No. 123/2009, the OP Nos. 1 and 2 thereof have preferred this appeal. By the impugned judgment, the complaint has been allowed on contest , and the Insurance Company has been directed to pay the sum assured of Rs. 3,00,000/- along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till actual payment of the entire amount and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- for litigation cost. The case of the Complainant is that her deceased husband , Goutam Keyat during his lifetime was working as an Agent of the Proforma OP in its Asansol Branch and got himself insured by the OP No.2 for the period from 15.06.2000 to 14.06.2015 of a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- , and the Complainant was made nominee thereof, being policy No. 4751220001799 / E.No.47-30852. He met with an accident while returning to his h...
Amandeep Singh 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 2.6.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which his complaint was disposed of by directing the opposite party to issue comprehensive show cause notice to him in which they should clearly state as to under what circumstances it was recovering the amount of Rs.22,600/- from him, as reflected in the bill dated 15.10.2008. It was further directed that after issuance of the notice, opposite party should afford an opportunity of personal hearing to him before proceeding to recover the amount as per the rules and regulations. 2. The facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant was having an electric connection, bearing account No.AHSP510364F with sanctioned load of 16 KWs, which was being used by him for his newly installed Atta Chakki. He was running the Chakki with the help of one worker for e...
Ashok Dyanoba Ubale Vs. Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electric ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 20.9.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Jalna dismissing consumer complaint No.57/2008. (For the sake of brevity appellant is herein after referred as complainant and respondent as opponent) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- Complainant Ashok Ubale is an agriculturist having agriculture field bearing Gut No.41/2002 at Partur, Dist.Jalna. It is irrigated land. He grows sugarcane in his field. In the year 2006-07 he had grown 4 acres of sugarcane in his field. L.T. electric line is passing through his field. It is alleged that the electric wires of L.T. lines were hanging loose. But despite complaints of complainant, opponent has not taken any steps to maintain electric lines by tightening electric wires. 3. On 5.12.2007 due to loose electric wires there was sparking and due to sparking the sugarcane from the field of complainant caught fire. Complainant and ne...
Surendra Chugh Vs. the Branch Manager, State Bank of India
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
S.A. Siddiqui(Oral Judgement): 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter called the Act).2. The complainant/respondent is a professional singer of high repute. He had taken a car loan from the HDFC Paharganj Bank Branch, New Delhi. The complainant was maintaining saving bank account No. 10117163266 with the State Bank of India, Appellant Bank and also having a current account No.10117107347. For payment towards monthly installments of loan, issued two cheques from his SBI account maintained with the OP/appellant Bank for an amount of Rs. 6789/- each on 7.11.09 and 7.12.09 respectively. The complainant also issued two cheques of Rs. 6789/- each from his current account maintained with the OP Bank on 7.6.2010 and 7.7.2010 in favour of the HDFC Bank. The earlier two cheques issued on 7.11.09 and 7.12.2009 were sent by the HDFC Bank to the appellant/OP Bank Khureji Khas for clearance which the appellant/OP Bank returned to the com...
Jarnail Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board Through Its S.D.O
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 for modification of the order dated 4.8.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which his complaint was partly allowed and the opposites party was held liable for the deficiency in rendering service to the complainant because it had not issued the bills regularly for which compensation of Rs.1,000/- was awarded. 2. The facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant was having a DS electric connection, bearing No.JB02/0502 having sanctioned load of 1 KW. The opposite party had installed the meters in big boxes of steel, which remained under the lock and key of the opposite party and thus he could not have reached the meter. The opposite party issued bill dated 7.3.2008 for consumption of 177 units for Rs.390/-, which was deposited by him. In the said bill reading was not legible and new reading was mentioned as 4902 ...
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd, and Another Vs. Kanwaljit Singh
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-17-2014
(Order) Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: Misc. Application No. 2133 of 2013 1. There is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act that there is delay of 45 days in filing the appeal. Keeping in view the contentions as stated in the application, the delay of 45 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Main Case 2. The appellants/OPs (hereinafter called œthe OPs?) have filed the present appeal against the order dated 22.8.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No. 207 dated 19.4.2012 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed with the direction to the Ops to pay Rs. 15,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from 11.2.2008 till date of payment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs. 3. The complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called œthe complainant?) on the allegations that he is NRI settled in U...
M/S. Atul Agrawal and Sons Vs. M/S.Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member: Heard Mr.Pravin Wagle, Advocate for the complainant and Mrs.Anita Marathe, Advocate for the opponent. Advocate Mrs.Marathe has filed Vakalatnama for opponent, taken on record. Complainant is claiming reliefs pertaining to motor vehicle which is bought by the Company i.e. M/s.Atul Agrawal and Sons. This company is dealing with business. The vehicle is in use of the company for enhancement of business. It is not for personal use or it is not for earning livelihood. Learned Advocate Mrs.Marathe rightly urged that the vehicle is purchased and used for commercial purpose and therefore, complainant will not fall within the definition of consumer as mentioned in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Learned Advocate Mrs.Marathe for the opponent has placed reliance on latest ruling of Honble National Commission laid down in case of General Motors Pvt. Ltd. V/s.G.S. Fertilizers (P) Ltd. and Anr., II (2013) CPJ 72 (NC). In Para 10 it is...
Manager, Wasan Automobiles and Another Vs. Sadashiv and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This appeal is filed by the original opponent no. 3 and 4 against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2008 passed by the District Forum, Ahmednagar in consumer complaint No. 332/2007, whereby complaint is partly allowed holding the appellants liable for deficiency in service. The respondent No.1 is the original complainant (hereinafter termed as œcomplainant?), whereas the respondent no.2 and 3 which are financial companies are the original opponent no.1 and 2 (hereinafter jointly termed as œopponent finance company?) 2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that, the complainant is a farmer and has purchased a Sarpanch-DI new tractor bearing registration No.MH.17-T-449 from the appellant no.1 for the total consideration of Rs.4,26,668/-. It is contended by the complainant that he sold his old tractor to the appellant no.2 for Rs.1,75,000/- and the said amount was paid to the appellant no.1 i.e. dealer of the tractor. In addition, he paid Rs.7...
Surinder Singh Vs. the New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.10.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased a Mediclaim Policy (Hospitalization Benefit Policy) from the Opposite Party, valid for the period from 31.01.2011 to 30.01.2012. The said Policy was got renewed for the period from 31.01.2012 to 30.01.2013. It was stated that earlier to that, the complainant had taken two Policies, from ICICI Insurance Company, for the last three years. It was further stated that when the Policy, in question, was issued, and renewed by the Opposite Party, its Agent did not get the complainant, medically examined. It was further stated that the Policy, in question, was received by the complainant. At that time, neither the terms and conditio...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ria Rajan Alimchandani
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
R.C. Chavan, President: This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai, partly allowing the consumer complaint No.262/2009, whereby the Forum Directed the Appellant Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant for mental agony, inconvenience and physical harassment with costs of Rs.5,000/-. The Forum also further directed the Appellant to hold an enquiry against the defaulting employee, fix the responsibility and recover the amount from the salary of the concerned employee. We have heard the Ld.Counsel for the Appellant and the Respondents Representative. The Complainant/Respondent had obtained a mediclaim policy which was valid from 11th March, 2009 till 10th March, 2010. The Complainant was hospitalized from 20th May, 2009. The expenses in the hospital were Rs.68,689/-. The TPA authorized payment of Rs.66,000/-. The Forum came to the conclusion that the Complainant had not paid to the hospital the b...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »