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.
VipIn and Another Vs. Dr. Ravindra Goyal and Another
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This is complainants appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 14.09.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 323 of 2008, whereby the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainants are husband and wife. The complainant No. 2 “ Smt. Vineeta became pregnant and consulted Dr. Seema Gupta of Dr. Seema Maternity Home, Haridwar for her treatment. On 05.11.2008, Dr. Seema Gupta advised the complainant No. 2 to get her ultrasound done. The complainants thereafter approached opposite party No. 1 “ Dr. Ravindra Goyal of Dhanwantri Ultrasound and X-ray Centre, Haridwar and paid consultation fee of Rs.300/-, but they were not provided any receipt for the same. After ultrasound, the complainants were verbally informed that the baby in the womb of the complainant No. 2 is not a...
The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Md. K ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Jagannath Bag, Ld. Member: The present appeal is directed against the Order No. 25 in CDF/Unit -1 /Case No. 409/2009, dated 31.08.12, of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit- I , Kolkata, whereby the complaint was allowed on contest with cost? against OP Nos. 1 and 2 and without cost against OP No. 3. The complaint case, in brief, was as follows: The Complainant is the owner of a lorry vide Registration No. WB-57A-1092 which was insured by the OP insurance company being the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd under? Commercial Vehicle Package Policy No. 1506372329104084. The policy was valid for the period from 20.09.07 to 19.09.08. The said vehicle met with an accident on 05.01.2008 near the Village, Sinduria, NH-2, P.S. Barun, Aurangabad , Bihar . On 07.01.2008? the incident was reported to the nearest P.S. of Barun. The vehicle was taken by crane to one garage at Boropara, P.O. Basbaria, P.S. Mogra, Dist- Hooghly at the cost of the Complainant. The fact of acc...
M/S JaIn Irrigation Systems Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Uma S. Bora, Member: 1. M/s Jain Irrigation System Ltd. situated at Jalgaon through its Vice President Mr.Dongarmal Inderchand Desarda preferred this complaint claiming insurance amount from opponent United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai. 2. Adv.Dhananjay Deshpande appeared for complainant. It is stated in the complaint that complainant is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act. Complainant is engaged in trading of agriculture inputs, manufacturing and supplying of wide range of quality agricultural inputs to enhance farm productivity, including water piping systems, on-farm irrigation system and superior biotech products etc. Complainant is well reputed company and pioneer in water creation, sourcing, storage structures, water distribution and water conservation devices like micro irrigation system and other agro products. 3. Complainant had obtained Marine Cargo insurance policy on estimated Annual Sales turn over basis from opponent. Policy was for the period 1...
Rushali Pankaj Palesha Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: 1. Complainant is a widow of late Pankaj Palesha. Complainant and her late husband jointly availed Housing loan facility extended by Bank of Maharashtra, Bajirao Road branch, Budhwar Peth, Pune. By way of additional security, Bank of Maharashtra availed œUNI HOME CARE POLICY? extending insurance cover to the borrowers, namely, complainant and her late husband. The nature of insurance provided is too fold. It covers fire risk for Rs.41 lakhs to the flat and Personal Accident cover of Rs.41 lakhs. The policy was valid for a period of 27/03/2008 to 26/03/2028. On 02/07/2010 late Shri Pankaj Palesha died as a result of an accidental fall from the terrace of his building. Complainant intimated incidence of death to the opponent and, simultaneously, police were also informed. Thereafter, the claim was submitted to the opponent no.1-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. by the complainant thereby claiming the entire amount of Rs.41 lakhs on account of cover for perso...
Col. Jasinder Pal Singh (Retd.) and Another Vs. Sushma Buildtech Ltd.
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
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 to purchase apartment/flat B-701 on 7th Floor in Wing B measuring 1680 sq. ft (super area) in the said project. The complainants booked the aforesaid apartment and paid Rs.3,52,000/- being 10% of the basic sale price. They were issued letter of allotment dated 23.7.2010 (Annexure C-1). An Apartment Buyers Agreement dated 27.7.2010 (Annexure C-2) was executed between the parties. The complainants obtained a housing loan of Rs.30 Lacs from IDBI Bank, based on construction linked payment plan, which was paid to the Opposite Party, as per its demands within the stipulated time. As such, the complainants paid a total amount of Rs.3...
Thakkar Hasmukhrai Devkaran Vs. Bandu Fattusingh Chindale and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member:1. This appeal is preferred against an order dated 07/01/2005 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Yavatmal in CC No. 297/2004, by which the complaint has been partly allowed.2. The case of the complainant in brief is that, he purchased a truck for his own occupation. He wanted to purchase new tyres and tubes for that truck. He approached to the Opposite Party (for short O.P.) No. 1 for purchasing the same as it is the dealer of the same. The O.P. No.1 represented that the tyres and tubes of O.P. No.2. are imported and having long life. The complainant therefore purchased on 26/09/2003, the said four tyres , tubes and flaps for Rs. 22,000/- from O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.1 gave guaranty for the same for six months by giving writing on a bill to the complainant. However, the said tyres and tubes got burst one after another within one and half month. The O.P. No.1 did not replace the same despite of making several requests by the complainant to it. The compla...
Mallavvabai Valyal Charitable Dental Hospital, Through Its President, ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member: (1) This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 28/06/2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur in Consumer Complaint No.676/09. (2) The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under: œThe original complainant/respondent had approached to the original opponent no.4 and the appellant for the dental treatment on 19/09/2009. The original opponent no.4 had taken x-ray and called the respondent for treatment of root canal on next day. While carrying out the root canal, needle of instrument was broken and went into abdomen of the respondent/original complainant. The opponent had referred the complainant/respondent to Markandeya Hospital and in the hospital, endoscopy was carried out. Similarly, the scanning was done in Ashiwini Hospital and in the scanning; the needle was detected in the abdomen of the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service and contending that the incident has caused because of the neglige...
Shanti Thallapali and Another Vs. Surana Sethia Hospital and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-2014
Mrs. Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Complainants have filed present complaint under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by alleging deficiency on the part of opponents. 2. Complainant No.1 is a Director of Shanti Clearing Agency Pvt. Ltd. Said Company is registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. Complainant No.1 was appointed as Director of said Company by Resolution dated 25/07/2008 on monthly remuneration of Rs.20,000/-. Complainant No.2 is the husband of complainant No.1. He is Managing Director of said Company. Complainant No.1 played an active role in day-to-day management of said Company. Opponent No.1 is a hospital situated at Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai. Opponent No.2 is a surgeon with opponent No.1 and also associated with L.C. Manek Polyclinic and Nursing Home. It is alleged that complainant No.1 is the victim of medical negligence caused by the opponents. 3. According to complainants on 26/04/2009 at midnight, complainant...
Nilgiri Gardens Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. M/S. Kailash ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: 1. Complainant is a Co-operative Housing Society who has filed this consumer complaint through its Authorised Representatives, (1) Mr.V.S. Gopakumar and (2) Mr.Hemand Bhardwaj, alleging deficiency of service against the Opponents as Lease Deed has not been executed in favour of the Complainant Society though all the prerequisite conditions have been fulfilled. Complainant prayed for directions to Opponents to execute Lease Deed of land admeasuring 27090.29 sq. meters situated at Sector 23/24, CBD Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai. Complainant Society also prayed for compensation of Rs.89,52,148/- and further Rs.10,00,000/- for mental agony together with interest @18% per annum on the amount of compensation claimed. 2. During the process of adjudication it was brought to the notice of this Commission that Opponent Nos.1(a) and 1(b) had expired. Therefore, complaint as against these Opponents stand abated. Complainant made Chairman ,Vice Chairman and all the Directors of ...
Regional Manager, Modi Agrogenetics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Anil Vithal Dalavi an ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.3.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Ahmednagar partly allowing C.C.No.451/2007 directing appellant/opponent No.1 to pay to the complainant/respondent damages of Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 10% p.a. and Rs.1000/- more towards compensation for causing mental agony. (For the sake of brevity appellant is herein after referred as opponent No.1 seed manufacturing company and respondent No.1 as the complainant and respondent No.2 as opponent No.2) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- Complainant Anil Dalvi is an agriculturist having agriculture field at village Shendi, tq and Dist.Ahmednagar. Opponent No.1 is seed manufacturing company and opponent No.2 is a dealer. On 4.4.20007 complainant purchased 20 bags of groundnut seeds of Kamala Variety from opponent No.2, each bag was containing 20 Kg. groundnut seeds. It was manufactured by opponent No.1. Thereafter c...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »