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.
Mohd. Saied, Through Its Chief Executive Vs. B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Ltd ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
S.A. Siddiqui(Oral Judgment): 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the Act) against the judgment and order dated 18.11.09 passed by District Forum (Central), Maharana Partap Bus Terminal, Mezzanine Floor, Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 267/08. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the dispute between the parties was settled by the Lok Adalat. In compliance thereof, the respondent raised a bill of Rs. 1,55,610/-, which was to be paid in five equal monthly installments of Rs. 31,122/- each. The respondents were directed by the Lok Adalat that the bill to be raised by will only consist of minimum charges without any LPSC or any other charges. Respondents issued pay-in-slip for four installments of the bill without details to show as to how the amount was arrived at. However, when they issued 5th and final pay-in-slip, it showed a sum of Rs. 31,122/-, which was inclusive of Rs. 19,135.31p as LPSC and Rs. 1,321.29p a...
Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar Through Registrar and Another Vs. ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
(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 26.3.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.24 dated 14.1.2011 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed with the direction to the Ops to refund Rs. 51,220/- after deducting processing fee of Rs. 1,000/- and also pay Rs. 2,000/- in lumpsum as litigation expenses alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till payment. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainant (hereinafter called œthe complainant?) against the opposite parties on the allegations that he appeared in the entrance test conducted by OP No. 1 for MBA and after depositing the requisite fee, he cleared the test by obtaining her Rank No. 206 and after counselling he deposited the fee of...
Magma Leasing Limited Now Known as Magma Fincap Limited and Another Vs ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-15-2014
(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 25.8.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No. 44 dated 18.3.2010 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed with the direction to the Ops to make payment of Rs. 29,606/- within a period of 30 days. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainant (hereinafter called œthe complainant?) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant had availed car loan facility from the Ops by obtaining a loan of Rs. 3 lacs in the year 2003 and it was repaid regularly without any delay. At the time of sanctioning the loan, the Ops have taken four cheques bearing No. 782772 to 782775 as a security....
Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others Vs. Lakhbir Kaur and Ot ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-14-2014
Gurdev Singh, President: 1. The appellants/opposite parties (LIC) have preferred this appeal against the order dated 15.10.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short, œDistrict Forum?), vide which the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was allowed and the LIC was directed to settle their insurance claim in terms of the policy and to pay the same to them, within 45 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. It was also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation costs to the complainants. 2. As per the averments made in the complaint, Avtar Singh, husband of complainant No.1 and father of the other complainants, got insurance cover of Rs.5,00,000/- from LIC against the payment of annual premium of Rs.30,192/-. The first premium was paid on 31.10.2006 and the policy known as New Bima Gold was issued. Complainant No.1 was nominated by the insured as his nominee to receive the insura...
Nandu Asrani and Another Vs. M/S. Kayjay Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. an ...
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Jan-14-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. The applicants herein are the complainants before the Lr. District Forum whose complaint alongwith the application for condonation of delay came to be dismissed for non prosecution on 28/03/13. By the present application filed on 9/10/12, the said complainants seek condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the said order, of about 195 days. 2. The application is contested by the Respondents/OPs. 3. We have perused the application, the reply filed opposing the same, and heard the Lr. advocates on behalf of both the parties. 4. The said complaint alongwith application came to be dismissed on 28/03/13 for default of appearance of the said complainants. The complainants advocate appeared at about 10.45 a.m. on the said date, and the advocate of the Respondents was yet to appear, when the said complaint alongwith application for condonation of delay came to be dismissed by the Lr. District Forum stating that the matter was called twice and both the parties ...
Darshan Singh and Another Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, and ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-14-2014
Gurdev Singh, President: 1. The above noted appeals have been preferred against the common order dated 25.5.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short, œDistrict Forum?), vide which the complaints bearing No.CC/10/510 dated 30.6.2010 and CC/10/511 dated 30.6.2010 filed by the appellants/complainants under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, œthe Act?) for directing the respondent/opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.88,000/- and Rs.26,400/-, respectively, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of loss/damage of wheat crops i.e. 3.4.2010 till the final realization of those amounts, Rs.5,500/-, each, for mental agony and stress suffered by them and Rs.5,500/-, each, as costs of the complaint, were dismissed. 2. As per the averments made in Complaint No.CC/10/510 dated 30.6.2010, the complainant was the owner in possession of the agricultural land measuring 21 bighas 4 biswas situated in Villa...
Devdas Pandurang Lubade and Others Vs. Dharma Nana Madane and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
R.C. Chavan “ President: In the course of arguments it was pointed out that the original Complainants/Appellants in Appeal no.A/11/250 were the office bearers. Appellant in Appeal No.173/2011 was also an office bearer of the Society who was impleaded in his personal capacity. Society itself has not been impleaded as a party. The Ld.Counsel for the original complainants on the instructions from his client submits that, it would be necessary to make Society as a party and if such opportunity is given, then his clients will take appropriate steps. Ld.Counsel for the Appellant in Appeal No.376/2011 states that the occupants had taken possession even before the occupation certificate was issued at their own risk. The Society had passed resolution, whereby the Society had taken over the responsibility of installing the lift and the amount paid to the builder was accordingly adjusted and this fact is required to be considered by the District Forum. In view of this, we feel it appro...
Estate Officer, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority Vs. Dr. Sanj ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
(Order) Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The appellant/opposite party (hereinafter called œthe opposite party?) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 8.9.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar (Mohali) (hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No. 249 dated 7.6.2011 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed with a direction to the Estate Officer”PIO to pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- and cost of litigation as Rs. 1,000/-. 2. The complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called œthe complainant?) against the opposite party on the allegations that the OP is public authority within the meaning Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 and had designated their Public Information Officer (in short PIO) and Assistant Public Information Officer (in short APIO) under Section 5(1) and 5(2) of RTI Act, 2005 and the complainant applied to the Publi...
Arun Dev Builders Vs. Shiv Raj Kumar
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
SALMA NOOR, MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the OP of the case No.336/2011 is directed against the order dated 18.1.2013 of the CDRF-IV, Nand Nagar, Delhi whereby the complaint of the respondent was allowed and the OP/Appellant was directed to refund Rs.1,63,000/- together with 9% interest from the date of deposit till its final payment.2. The appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal 3. We have heard Shri Mukul Kumar, Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 4. It is very poorly drafted application. No period of delay sought to be condoned is mentioned in the condonation application.? As per our calculation there is a delay of 100 days. 5. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant is that arguments were heard in his presence and the order was reserved without fixing a date for order and he came to know about the order only on ?4.7.2013 when Sh. Mukul Kumar, who was appearing in some ...
Punjab State Electricity Board and Another Vs. Charanjit Singh
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
(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 12.11.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.98 dated 27.2.2006 vide which it was allowed by the learned District Forum and restrained the opposite parties from realizing the amount of arrears shown in the bill dated 12.2.2006. However, the complainant will be bound to pay actual consumption charges minus arrears reflected in the bill. 2. The complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called œthe complainant?) against the opposite parties on the allegations that he had applied for the grant of domestic electric connection, which was released. However, the Ops are claiming illegal amount without assigning any reason. Lastly the Ops vide bill No. 69036 dated 12.2.20...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »