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.
Arvind Ramchandra Pawar Vs. the Manager
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
R.C. Chavan, President: Applicant/appellant has filed an application for placing on record an agreement dated 05/02/2004 which could not be placed by the appellant on record of the forum since it was not available. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection. Application is therefore allowed. This appeal is directed against an order dated 06/09/2007 passed by the District Forum at Satara whereby forum dismissed appellants complaint no.210/2006. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.Appellant had borrowed a certain sum of money for purchase of a motor truck from the respondent company. Since the appellant defaulted in repayment of the loan as per schedule, Company seems to have taken possession of the vehicle. There is no dispute that there was default in repayment of loan and 9 cheques of the appellant were bounced. Contention of the appellant is that the loan installment itself was fixed incorrectly adding the finance cha...
Omaxe Limited and Another Vs. Sandeep Luthra
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.11.2013, 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) and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants), as under:- œFor the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is allowed. OPs are directed :- i) To deliver the peaceful possession of the plot No.65 in Group Housing Scheme under the name of œOmaxe Parkwoods?, Baddi-II situated at Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, to the complainant. ii) To pay interest @9% p.a. on the payments made by the complainant w.e.f. 24.8.2010 till the handing over of the possession of the plot to the complainant. iii) To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lac to the complainant for causing physical as well as mental harassment. iv) To pay litigation costs to...
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kaushal Kumar
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
Oral (Order) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.11.2012, passed District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhamtari (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.42/2011, whereby the complaint of the respondent / complainant, has been partly allowed. 2. The appellant/O.P. has preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 05.11.2012, passed by the District Forum and also filed application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties on the application for condonation of delay and have also perused the record of the District Forum. 4. In Revision Petition No.1616 of 2011 - National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shri P. Rangaswamy and anr., decided on 11.11.2013, Hon'ble National Commission held thus : "8. In Ram Lal and others Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed :- It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown ...
Karvy Stock Broking Limited, Haridwar and Another Vs. Jitendra Batra
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been preferred with a delay of 200 days, against the order dated 29.01.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 05 of 2009. 2. For condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the appellants have moved a delay condonation application supported with the affidavit of Sh. Pradeep Tripathi, Managar, Karvy Stock Broking Limited, Branch Office, Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun (Paper Nos. 13 to 15). In the affidavit, it has been averred that the notice of the consumer complaint was received by Sh. Manish Chandra Gupta, Manager of the appellant No. 1 and he kept the said notice in his personal file and that there were some charges against the said official regarding irregularities and carelessness in his duties. The appellant No. 1 was not satisfied with his work and he was forced to resign. The said official resigned from his duties, but did not deliver the papers of the comp...
Armstrong World Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
Oral Order: Narendra Kawde, Member: [1] We have heard Adv. Sagar Sandip Ghogare instructed by M/s. Majumdar and Partners on behalf of the Complainant and Adv. Smt. Sneha S. Dwivedi on behalf of the Opponents. We have also perused the record. [2] Complainant has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent “ National Insurance Company Ltd., for not settling various insurance claims and has claimed from the Opponent Insurance Company an amount of Rs.26,16,850/- together with interest thereon @ 7.75% besides costs of the complaint. [3] The Complainant has been availing from the Opponent Insurance Company Transit Insurance Policies and other Marine Insurance Policies since the past ten years for covering the risks arising from any damage caused to the goods and materials imported by the Complainant in India from other countries and the goods and materials distributed from the Complainants warehouse situated at Bhiwandi to any other location in India...
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Satish Sing ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.09.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it allowed the complaint, filed by the complainant and directed the Opposite Parties No.1, 2 and 3 as under:- œ18. In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1, 2 and 3 are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1, 2 and 3, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are directed as below:- [a] Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to indemnify the Complainant the amount of Rs.2,07,814/- as assessed by the Surveyor in his report (Ex.R-12);[b] Opposite Parties No.1,2 and 3 to pay Rs.50,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and harassment to the Complainant;[c] Opposi...
i.C. Sharma Vs. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President: 1. The facts of the case are that the complainant who lives in House No. 144/B, Block-D, Freedom Fighter Enclave, New Delhi, for obtaining a House Holder insurance policy from the OP Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., made a proposal, along with list of articles, giving the description and details of clothings, kitchenware, furniture, miscellaneous items Gold Jewellery, Electrical appliances cameras etc. to be insured to the OP Insurance Co. The OP Insurance Co. insured the goods for different amounts for the sum insured for a year. Thereafter in subsequent years continuously the complainant got the insurance agreement renewed from the OP Insurance Company, and till 2006, the OP Insurance Company insured him by issuing the following insurance cover (policy schedule) showing item wise sum insured:-ITEM WISE SUM INSURED ItemDescriptionSectionSum InsuredBuildingHouse No.144B, Block-D, Freedom Fighters Enclave N Delhi-681A2000000.00Miscellaneous ItemsAS pe...
Rajiv Goel and Another Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
(Order) Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The appellant/complainant (hereinafter called œthe complainant?) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 16.12.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No. 324 dated 5.5.2010 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties on the allegations that he is having electricity connection No. JR-03/806 with the load of 17.92 KWs and is regularly paying the bills. It has been alleged that on 26.9.2009 some of the officials inspected the connection and removed the meter for getting the same tested. On 23.10.2009, a bill cum notice was issued by the Ops vide which a demand of Rs. 14,765/- was raised on the ground that meter was found running slow upto 33.04%, accordingly, the demand has been challenged to be illegal, null and voi...
Abdul Basit Vs. M/S. Tuberose Estaes Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
S.A. SIDDIQUI(ORAL JUDGEMENT): 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act) against the judgment and order dated 05.12.2008 passed by District Forum- X, Udyog Sadan, C-22 and 23 Institutional Area, (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi “ 16 in Complaint Case No. 860/05 (1463/04). 2. Brief facts of the case are that OP, an estate developer and builder working under the name and style M/s Tubrose Estate Pvt. Ltd. OP developed a commercial complex namely œEnkay Tower? situated at Vanijiya Nikunj, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgoan, Haryana. The Appellant Abdul Basit and his two brothers, Abdul Waseem and Abdul Azim purchased flat Nos. 221, 222 and 223 in œEnkay Tower? situated at Vanijiya Nikunj, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgoan, Haryana from the Respondent vide agreement of Provisional allotment dated 27.1.05. It has been alleged by the complainant/appellant that at the time of sale of flats respondent/OP had assur...
Prem Chand Vs. Max Life Insurance Company Limited and Another
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.11.2013, 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 that the complainant purchased the Policy bearing No.871634440, from the Opposite Parties, on payment of premium, to the tune of Rs.11,000/-, on 24.07.2012. The said Policy was delivered to the complainant on 28.08.2012. On going through the Policy, the complainant found many things, contrary to the verbal assurances, given to him, by the Opposite Parties. Since, the terms and conditions of the Policy were not agreeable to the complainant, he returned the Policy document, to the Opposite Parties, vide letter dated 28.08.2012, for cancellation of the same. It was stated that when no response was received from the Opposite Parties, reminders were issued, vid...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »