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.
B.K. Sood-husband Vs. Alchemist Hospital and Others
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member: 1. B.K. Sood-complainant (appellant herein) has come up in appeal against the order dated June 24th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short District Forum) whereby complaint filed by him alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No.1 to 3 (respondents herein) was dismissed. 2. Smt. Bala Sood (since deceased, hereinafter referred to as patient)-wife of appellant was under the treatment of Medical Specialist, General Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula. On January 23rd, 2011 she fell in the bathroom and was admitted in Alchemist Hospital-respondent No.1 on 20.02.2011 at 5.30 A.M. The doctor on duty (EMO) in triage examined the patient and did ECG which was found normal. The ECG was shown to doctor on duty in Cardiac ICU who told that since there was no chest pain and the ECG was normal, a cardiac event looked unlikely. The RMO doctor on duty in triage then called Dr. Achint Nara...
Rajesh Sharma Vs. Processing Incharge (Manager)
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
(Order) R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.09.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhamtari (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.13/2011, whereby the complaint of the appellant / complainant, has been dismissed, as not proved. 2. The case of the complainant before the District Forum in brief are that the complainant is resident of Ramsagar Para, Dhamtari and is agriculturist by profession. His father Shri Raghunandan Prasad Sharma, is having one acre land, his son Navin Sharma (minor) is having 2.37 hectare land, his mother Smt. Kumari Bai Sharma is having 0.41 hectare land and his nephew Ravi Sharma (minor) is also having 0.41 hectare land at village Siraudkala, Patwari Halka No.65/2, Revenue Circle Sihava, Tahsil Nagari, District - Dhamtari. The complainant looks after all agricultural lands of his father, mother, minor son and his nephew. On 14.06.2010, the complainant went to office of the O.P. fo...
Vikson Commodities Private Limited Through Its Authorized Representati ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.11.2013, 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. In brief, the facts of the case, are that the complainant Company, being run by the closely related family members for self employment, entered into an agreement with Opposite Party No.1, for a period of one year commencing from 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2011. It was stated that during the said period, Opposite Party No.1 had agreed to provide services i.e. recommendations to various clients through web, voice call, sms etc. for availing of services of the complainant for the purpose of dealing in commodities market. It was further stated that the contract for the said period was for Rs.16,545/- (Annexure C-1). It was further stated that the complainant paid the agreed consideration charges for the initia...
Deputy Executive Engineer Vs. R.W. Varma
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-13-2014
Jayashree Yengal, Presiding Member: 1) This appeal challenges the order dt.6/09/2002 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Yavatmal partly allowing the consumer complaing bearing no.305/2001 and cancelling the electricity bill of Rs.82,195/- and directing the opposite party/appellant herein to reissue a bill from January -1994 on the basis of actual electricity consumed without imposing any additional burden of fine etc. And further granting compensation of RS.5000/- towards mental and physical harassment and Rs.1000/- towards cost of proceedings. 2) The respondent Mrs. R.W.Verma to be reffered as complainant and the appellant MSEB (Urban) Yavatmal to be reffered as opposite party. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:- 3) The complainant Mr.R.W.Verma had electric connection and two electric meters bearing no.3576150 and 078477 were connected to DL connection 1143. The complainant was regularly paying the bill towards electricity consumption. It is contention of the com...
Ebony Pharma, Through K.K. Middha, Partner, Vs. Joshi Autozone Pvt. Lt ...
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 04.12.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that vehicle of the complainant bearing registration no.CH-03-W-1705 was comprehensively insured, with the New India Assurance Company Limited, for the period from 14.04.2010 to 13.04.2011, for the Insured Declared Value of Rs.2,94,000/-. It was stated that, on 16.02.2011, the said car was found burnt, when it was parked, on the ground floor of the premises of the complainant. The engine of the vehicle was completely burnt. It was further stated that intimation of the said incident was given to the Insurance Company. FIR was also lodged, in that regard. It was further stated that spot survey was conducted by the Surveyor of the Insurance Company, wherea...
Niranjan Kr. Paul Vs. Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd., and Oth ...
Court: Meghalaya State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shillong
Decided on: Jan-11-2014
Judgment And Order (CAV) Ramesh Bawri, Senior Member:- 1. The complainant has filed this complaint petition stating that he is the proprietor of M/s N P Textiles. He got his shop insured with the opposite party insurance company. Unfortunately his shop was gutted by fire in the month of September, 2008. He filed a claim of Rs. 43 lakhs for the loss and damage suffered in the incident. The opposite parties refused to settle the claim and intimated the complainant that the cheque for premium of Rs. 15,200 issued in favour of the insurance company was dishonoured and the insurance policy which was issued due to oversight was cancelled and the company was not liable to compensate the loss. The insurance claim having been repudiated, the complainant lodged the present complaint for payment of compensation. 2. The opposite parties have filed a showcause reply raising a preliminary issue that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the instant complaint. Further it is c...
Surendra Kumar JaIn Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Oral (Order) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.10.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.131/2010, whereby the complaint of the appellant / complainant, has been partly allowed. 2. The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 25.10.2010, passed by the District Forum and also filed application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard arguments of 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 c...
Municipal Council, Sunam Through Its Executive Officer and Another Vs. ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
(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 8.7.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.443 dated 26.9.2012 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed with the directions to the Ops to withdraw the order by which the sanction plan of the complainant was cancelled and pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. 2. The respondent/complainant (hereinafter called œthe complainant?) has filed the complaint against the opposite parties on the allegations that on 5.10.2011, he had applied for the sanction of the site plan after taking the site on rent from Shamshan Bhoomi Patti Aali, Sunam and the same was approved vide order No. 38 dated 25.10.2011 on deposit of Rs. 1485/- and other documents. However, when he was going to co...
Mohanlal Agarwal Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
1. This is to consider Appellants delay condonation petition, stating a delay of 1153 days in preferring the appeal, including the statutory period of 30 days, which being not intentional, be condoned. 2. In this case, the Respondent has filed one W.O. against such petition of the Appellant terming the same as non-maintainable on different counts. 3. Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has mentioned that the delay is not intentional and the same be condoned. 4. Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has made out that already there is subsisting an order of this Commission in this respect in RC/117/2011 against the order of the restoration of the case in Misc. Case No. 09/2011 vide Order No. 31 dated 04.08.2011 against the self-same impugned order of dismissal dated 4.6.2010, and against such order of this Commission, the Appellant moved before the Honble National Commission in RP No. 4189/2012, but subsequently, without assigning any reason therefore, has withdrawn the said revision from the Honbl...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rama Suneel Damle and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Jayshree Yengal, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 07/11/2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Bhandara partly allowing the Consumer Complaint bearing No. 77/2008 thereby directing the opponent insurance company /appellant herein to pay insurance claim of Rs. 2,26,000/- with 6% interest from the date of death of insured, and Rs.10,000/- towards mental and physical harassment and opponent insurance company, General Manager, Sunflag Iron and Steel Company and Executive (HRM), Sunflag Iron and Steel Company to pay Rs.2000/- each towards cost of proceeding to the complainant and Rs.25,000/- compensation more to be paid by the insurance company as exemplary cost of which Rs.10,000/- be paid to the complainant and Rs.15,000/- to be deposited in the Legal Aid Account. The appellant - New India Assurance Company to be referred as opponent No.1 and respondents Nos.1,2and3 namely Smt. Rama Sunil Damle, Akash Sunil Damle and Ankita Sunil Damle to be referred a...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »