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.
T.K. Binod Vs. M/S. Telco Constructions Equipment Co. Ltd. and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
Smt. A. Radha : Member On dismissal of complaint by the CDRF, Ernakulam in C.C.No.306/10 the complainant preferred this appeal. 2. It is the case of the complainant that complainant purchased œBackhoe arm? loader from 2nd opposite party on 13/06/2008 for Rs.21,97,000/- for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The warranty was provided to the machine for one year or 2000 operating hours. The complainant availed a loan and he had to remit @ Rs.53,500/- each towards monthly instalments. The machine had to be taken to the workshop for repairs on 30 occasions within the warranty period. Due to recurring complaints the complainant could not generate any income by working machine and hence defaulted the repayment of the loan amount. It is stated in the complaint that the machine was repossessed by the financiers on account of non payment of loan amount and at the time of repossession the amount due to the financiers was Rs.27,15,932/-. The 2nd opposite party had collected...
John Chandy Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board, R/by Its Secretary, Vy ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is a Revision Petition filed by the complainant in CC.109/13 of CDRF, Kottayam challenging the order of the Forum dated, July 26, 2013 in I.A.70/13 dismissing the petition. 2. Complainant filed the complaint before the Forum against the Electricity Board cancelling the penal bill for Rs.6,30,323/- issued to the petitioner. The said bill was issued by the Board on the allegation that Anti Power Theft Squad of KSEB detected theft in the electrical connection on inspection. I.A.70/13 was filed by the complainant for reconnection of the electric connection. 3. As the Forum found that complainant has approached the Honble High Court challenging the said bill where the High Court has directed the respondents for fresh inspection, the petition is not maintainable. Complainant has challenged the said order in this revision. 4. Admittedly complainant has filed Writ Petition No.1690/13 before the Honble High Court and by its order dated:17.01.2013 it was found thu...
ignatius Vs. the Manager, Federal Bank
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-31-2014
K. Chandradas Nadar : Judicial Member The appellant was the complainant in CC.No.393/2011 in the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant had availed a loan from the opposite party Federal Bank, Kallikkad Branch for plying a tourist taxi which was hypothecated to the bank. It is alleged that the complainant repaid an amount of Rs.1, 73,000/- during the period from 1997 to 2011. But CF test was essential for continuing taxi service. Hence the complainant approached the bank to return the registration certificate, insurance etc relating to the vehicle to enable him to appear for CF test but there was no response from the side of the opposite party. Hence the complainant could not take his vehicle for CF test on 07.12.2002. The original documents relating to the vehicle such as RC book certificate of insurance etc were under the custody of the bank. Complainant suffered heavy loss and injury as the bank failed to return the original documents relating to the vehicle. The complainant coul...
Dr. P.K. Reddy and Others Vs. K.R. Desinguraja and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
(These two Revision Petitions coming before us for final hearing on 20.12.2013 and on hearing the arguments of petitioners counsel and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the Common Order: These two Revision Petitions pertain to the same issue arising in the same complaint viz. C.C. No.241 / 2010 on the file of the District Forum, Chennai [South], dated 3-1-2012 and hence Common Order is passed. R.P. 26 / 2012 is filed by the 2nd opposite party against the order in C.M.P. No.444 / 2010, and R.P. No. 27 / 2012 is filed by the opposite parties 1 and 3 against the order in CMP No. 537 / 2010, of the District Forum dismissing the petitions seeking dismissal of the complaint as barred by limitation.) J. Jayaram, Judicial Member The complainant has filed a complaint in C.C. No.241 / 2010, before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai [South] claiming compensation for the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 who ...
idbi Federal Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anuva Ghosal and Another
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
J. Bag, Ld. Member. The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 11.06.2012 of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressasl Forum, Birbhum , in CF Case No. CC/59/0/2010, whereby Ld. Forum below allowed the complaint on contest against OP No.1 with cost and dismissed on contest against other OPs without any costs . The complaint case, in brief, was as follows: The Complainants son Samrat Ghosal during his life time purchased a flat in the last part of 2009 with a home loan of Rs. 11,83,000/- from IDBI Bank, being the OP/Respondent No.2. The said home loan was insured under the scheme of IDBI Fortis Home Insurance Protection Plan under IDBI Fortis Life Insurance Company Ltd. The sum assured was Rs. 12,11,160/- . The date of commencement of the policy was December, 23, 2009 which was valid for 20 years. On 19.01.2010 the insured Samrat Ghosal having been found lying in an unconscious condition in his flat was taken to MRB Hospital where he was declared brought dead . Jadavpu...
M/S. Sri Krishna Abhyudya Constructions, Rep. by Smt. A. Annupama Redd ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
T. Ashok Kumar, Member This is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties against the order in C.C.No.80/2011 dated 18-1-2013 on the file of District Forum, Rangareddy. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder: The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainant, a registered Association of flat owners, of œSai Annapurna Residency? situated at Plot Nos.1 and 10 admeasuring 679.87 sq. yds. in Sy.No.38/3 (Old Sy.No.23 and 24) bearing Municipal No.3-9-8 (Old H.No.9-8) situated at Sharada Nagar, Ramanthapur has been registered vide registration No.175/2011. According to the complainant there are 14 flats in the apartment and they purchased flats therein between the period 2005 to 2007 under the bonafide belief that the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 are the owners and builders and they erected the apartment after obtaining prior construction permission from appropriate authorities and took possession of their respective flats but the...
Subhrajit Das Vs. Vindya Project Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President. This a complaint case wherein the Complainant has stated that he entered into an agreement with the developers, that is, the OP No.1 and 2 for purchase of a flat being no.2B, 2nd floor, Block-II measuring 1132 sq. ft. at 91/9, Bosepukur Road, Ward No.91, KMC, Kolkata, P.S. Kasba, District-South 24-Parganas. The agreement was executed on 21/07/05 by the developers through its Director, Sri Ravi Sankar Agarwal (OP) and also by the land owners, OP Nos.4 to 8 through their constituted attorney, the OP No.2. The total consideration money for the flat and car parking space was fixed at Rs.14,01,800/- out of which the Complainant paid advance amount of Rs.1,67,933/-. Under the said agreement the promoters (OP Nos.1 and 2) received advance amount of Rs.12,61,933/- out of the total consideration of Rs.14,01,800/- in respect of the flat and car parking space. In addition the Director, Sri Ravi Sankar Agarwal received Rs.50,000/- through cheque and Rs.2,46,000/- ...
K.K. Sadanandan, Proprietor Vs. Assistant Secretary, Thrissur Corporat ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the complainant in OP.193/05 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur challenging the order of the Forum dated, July 13, 2012 dismissing the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant as testified by PW1 his power of attorney holder and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- The complainant received Ext.P1 bill on 9.9.2002 from opposite parties 1 and 2, Thrissur Corporation demanding an arrear amount of Rs.1,20,458/- for the period from March 2001 to September 2002. The amount was demanded by stating that there was one connection in the premises by consumer No.7240B in the name of 3rd opposite party Sri.Y.Janardhana Rao. The complainant has purchased property from 3rd opposite party but there was no such connection. The bill is time barred. Complainant filed OP.802/02 before the Forum for the same relief but the same was dismissed for non jointer of necessary parties. Therefore the bill Ext.P1 may be cancelled and comp...
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another Vs. Mukul Sarkar
Court: Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Agartala
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
S. Baidya, J. 1. This appeal filed on 26.08.13 by the appellants under section 15 of the C.P.Act, 1986 is directed against the judgment dated 27.07.13 passed by the Learned District Forum, West Tripura in case No.C.C-53/12 whereby the Learned District Forum was pleased to direct the O.P., the appellants herein to restore the telephone line of the complainant immediately with a further direction to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for deficiency of service along with a sum of Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost. The appellants were further directed to pay the said amount to the complainant with a period of 30 days from the date of judgment, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% p.a. after the expiry of 30 days till the payment is made. 2. It has been stated in the memo of appeal that the case of the complainant before the District Forum is that he is a consumer of the BSNL and accepted the offer of Bi-Annual-Urban Plan namely L.L.Plan 2160 and paid an amount of Rs.2382/-,...
Ayswarya Finance Rep. by Managing Partner, V.K. Bhramadas and Others V ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the Judgments Debtors/opposite parties in EA.48/08 in CC.1424/04 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur challenging the order of the Forum dated, November 21, 2012 imposing a fine of Rs.10,000/- to the appellants except the 3rd opposite party with a default sentence of one month under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. 2. In CC.1424/04 the Forum passed an award on October 30, 2006 directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,200/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from August 23, 2004 till realization and a cost of Rs.1500/-. As the opposite parties did not pay the amount the complainant filed the above execution application before the Forum. 3. Complainant was examined as PW1 and one of the opposite party was examined as DW1. Exts.B1 to B15 were marked before the Forum and the Forum found that the opposite parties did not pay the entire amount due under the order and imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- with a default sentence of i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »