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.
M/S. International Tractors Limited and Another Vs. Virender Singh and ...
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
Nawab Singh, President (Oral): 1. Virender Singh-complainant (respondent No.1 herein) purchased Sonalika- International Tractor DI -750 III from M/s Anil Tractors, Siwani (for short Anil Tractors) for a consideration of Rs.4,80,000/- on 15th March, 2010, vide bill No.128 (Annexure A-1). 2. The tractor was found to be defective. The respondent No.1 approached Anil Tractors to rectify the defect but it was not rectified. Hence, the complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (for short District Forum) seeking direction to the appellants to replace the tractor. 3. The appellants contested complaint by filing written statement denying the averments of the respondent No.1. 4. The complaint was accepted by the District Forum vide order dated September 25th, 2013 directing the appellant No.1 to replace the tractor with new one of same model without charging any amount with new warranty or to refund Rs.4,80...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Khushboo Enterprises
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member: 1. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 12/07/2013 passed by District Forum, South Mumbai in consumer complaint No.90/2008. 2. The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under :- "The complainant-company had availed insurance policy named as œStandard Fire and Special Perils Policy? from the opponent and the policy period is from 22/06/2005 to 21/06/2006. During the policy period on 06/02/2006 there was a fire at Sai Laxmi Storage Corporation and due to fire; the goods of the complainant-company got destroyed. The complainant informed the incident to the opponent. The complainant lodged a claim of Rs.9,76,400/-. Opponent/Insurance Company had appointed Surveyor for assessment of loss. Opponent/Insurance Company appointed œAshok Chopra and Co.? as Surveyor. The complainant-company provided necessary information to enable the Surveyor to assess the loss. The Surveyor had submitted his final report on 26/04/2006 to the opponent...
Jaswinder Singh Vs. Dr. Gurbir Kaur
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
(Order) Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The appellant/complainant (hereinafter called œthe complainant?) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 8.8.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No. 40 dated 6.5.2013 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainant on the allegations that on 6.1.2012, the wife of the complainant, namely, had given birth to female child and at the time the Ops conducted Tubectomy operation of his wife and as per the Ops the operation was successful and they had charged Rs. 30,000/- from him besides Rs. 20,000/- spent by him on the medicines. But lateron in the month of December, 2012 he became suspicious about the pregnancy of his wife. In the test, it was confirmed and was in the 8th month of pregnancy. His wife was going to give birth to the 4th child and be...
Monjay Das, Vs. the Managing Director and Others
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
Debasis Bhattacharya, Member: Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.08.2012, delivered by the Ld. District Forum, Siliguri, in Case No. 64/S/2011, the Complainant thereof has preferred this appeal. By the impugned judgment, the Ld. District Forum has dismissed the case on contest, but without cost. The case of the Complainant is that he purchased one Chevrolet Travera Motor Vehicle on 08.09.2005, which was insured with the OP no.2 for a sum assured of Rs.6,10,000/- (Rupees six lakhs ten thousand) for the period from 31.12.2006 to 30.12.2007, vide Policy No. 313207/31/2007/3831 and the vehicle was hypothecated to the OP No.3. While the Complainant was on tour in the North East with his said vehicle and Driver, and returning from Senaparti, Manipur after visiting his friend, they reached a Petrol Pump, namely, Faithful Services, 5th Mile, Dimapur, Nagaland, at about 1.40 A.M. on 06.04.2007 for taking petrol. At that time, three unknown persons came there on a Scooter and suddenly sta...
K.S. Agrotech and Another Vs. Gurcharan Singh Sidhu and Others
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
(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 21.12.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shri Muktsar Sahib(in short the œDistrict Forum?) vide which the complaint No. 144 dated 31.5.2010 vide which the President of the District Forum dismissed the complaint for want of impleading the manufacturer as a necessary party with liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint after impleading manufacturer whereas the other two Members allowed the complaint allowing compensation of Rs. 30,000/- against the opposite party alongwith interest within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 2. Aggrieved with the order, the Op as well as the complainant have filed their respective appeals. 3. The complaint was filed by the complainant-Gurcharan Singh Sidhu under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in sho...
M/S. Espee Enterprises, Haridwar and Another Vs. Deepak Kumar Singh
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 85 of 2013, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the complainant to hand over his vehicle to the opposite party No. 1 within 15 days from the date of the order and the opposite party No. 1 has been directed to make available a new vehicle of the same make to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receiving the vehicle. The District Forum has also directed the opposite party No. 2 to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 3 lacs towards damages, becuase the opposite party No. 2 is the manufacturer of the said vehicle. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant - Sh. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate had purchased a motorcycle named œBajaj Discover? 150cc bearing registration number UK08-T-0650 and having chassis number MD2DS33 TPG 75426 and engine number J-2UBTG-75...
Dr. S.J. Kharbade and Another Vs. the Branch Head and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
N. Arumugam, Member: This is an appeal filed by the original complainant against the order dtd. 22.01.2009 passed by Addl. District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in consumer complaint No.CC/08/381 (Old) and CC/08/144 (New) directing the O.P. to give credit to the complainant of Rs.786/- by making necessary correction, to pay Rs.25,000/- towards mental and physical harassment and also to pay Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of proceeding. The facts of the case in brief are as under:- 1. The complainant availed the housing loan of Rs.5.50 Lacs from the O.P. Bank @ 8% p.a. (variable rate of interest with monthly rest basis). Accordingly, the EMI was being paid by the complainant. According to the complainant the Bank charged extra interest Rs.1,23,263.51 and also charged Rs.960.39 and Rs.786.75 as a fine. Hence, the complainant made correspondences with the Bank about the charging extra interest. After receipt of the complaint the Bank rectified the mistake by reducing Rs.90,442.70. Since the Bank di...
The Sub-divisional Engineer and Another Vs. B.D. Banerjee
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.09.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, 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:- œIn view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. The opposite parties are directed as under :- i) to immediately overhaul the account of the complainant by treating it as residential from the date it was changed to commercial. ii) to adjust the amount (arrived at after overhauling the account) in the future bill(s) of the complainant. iii) To pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant. iv) To pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs. This order be complied wit...
icici Bank Pvt. Limited Vs. Bhatia Electricals, Karnal, Through Its Pa ...
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member (Oral): 1. This appeal is before us in view of remand order dated September 12, 2013 passed by Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. 2. ICICI Bank Pvt. Ltd. “opposite party No.1 (appellant herein) has come up in appeal against the order dated December 1st, 2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short District Forum). 3. Bhatia Electricals, Karnal “complainant (respondent No.1 herein) presented two cheques dated 16.06.2008 and 1.7.2008 for Rs.2.00 lacs and Rs.53,000/- respectively drawn on The Karnal Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. to the appellant for encashment on 23.06.2008. The cheques were issued by Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Risalwa District Karnal in favour of the respondent No.1. However, the cheques were misplaced during transaction and were not encashed. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant as well respondent No.2, respondent No.1 filed complaint under Section...
Guru Gobind Singh College of Education Vs. Bharpoor Singh and Others
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
Gurdev Singh, President: 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/opposite party against the order dated 12.4.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short, œDistrict Forum?), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant, Bharpoor Singh, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, œthe Act?) was allowed and the opposite party was directed to refund the sum of Rs.10,500/- within 45 days of the receipt of the copy of the order and in case of non-compliance to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the realization of that amount. The opposite party was also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs and compensation to the complainant. 2. As per the averments made by the complainant, in his complaint, he was a student of B.Ed. of the opposite party-College during the Session 2010-2011. At the time of the start of the Session, the information regarding the fee to be charged from the students and vari...
- ‹ Prev
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- Next ›
- Last »