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.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Dr. Rajesh Bhatia
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
(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 5.10.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No. 25 dated 14.6.2012 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed with the direction to OP No. 1 to pay Rs. 5 lacs to the complainant/decree holder and compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. 2. The complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called œthe complainant?) against the opposite party on the allegations that he purchased Honda City Car bearing Engine / Chassis No. 001721/001172, bearing registration No. PB-32-H-0070 having insured with OP vide Policy No. 235402/31/2011/7665 from 28.11.2010 to 27.11.2011. However, during the insurance policy on 30.7.2011 it met with an accident on Garhshanker-N...
Tata Motors Limited Vs. Antonio Paulo Vaz and Another
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. The OP No. 2 in CC No. 91/2011 has filed this appeal and it is directed against order dated 27/09/13 of the Lr. North Goa District Forum, by which both the OPs have been jointly and severally directed to replace the car with a new car of the same model or to refund the entire amount of the car with interest at the rate of 10% from the date given for delivery and to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental stress and agony and costs of Rs.5000/-. 2. We have heard Shri. Rodrigues, the lr. advocate of the complainant, and Shri. Bhagat the lr. advocate of OP No. 1, the dealer. Shri. Salgaonkar the lr. advocate of OP No. 2, the manufacturer, has preferred to file written submission and we have perused the same. 3. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose off this appeal. 4. The complainant purchased from the dealer, OP No. 1, Tata Xenon crewcab manufactured by OP No. 2 on or about 25/01/11 and paid a sum of Rs.8,37,619/- plus Rs.50,567 of road tax and plu...
Chandrama Vs. Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, and ...
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 23.08.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.01/2012, whereby the complaint of the appellant / complainant, has been dismissed. 2. The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 23.08.2012, passed by the District Forum and also filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for all the parties on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 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 Cour...
Arun Kumar Singh and Others Manager, Sahara City Homes Marketing and S ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
(Order) R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This order will govern disposal of Appeal No.FA/13/294 as well as Appeal No.FA/13/307, which have been preferred respectively by the complainant and OPs of Complaint Case No.35/2012 against the order dated 30.03.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum?), whereby the complaint filed by the complainant has been allowed and OPs have been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,926/- to the complainant within two months from the date of order along with interest @ 12% w.e.f. 27.04.2005 till date of payment and also to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation. It is further directed that if the OPs will not pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant within two months from the date of the order, the said amount is payable along with interest @ 18% p.a. For the purpose of convenience, hereinafter in this order, the parties will be referred as pe...
Janab Haji Hafeez Moulvi A.M. Imdhathullah Saheb, Prop.Moulana Haj Ser ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
(The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Hence appellant / opposite party prefer an appeal in F.A.No.300/2010 praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.291/2007, dated 17.03.2010, while the complainant filed an appeal in F.A.No.258/2011, for enhancement. These appeals coming before us for hearing finally on 12.12.2013, upon hearing the arguments on either side , perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.) A.K.Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The 1st and 2nd complainants who are the husband and wife approached the opposite party who is a tour operator to have a Holy Haj Trip for the year 2006-2007. At that time it was specifically informed to the opposite party that the 1st complainant and his wife were sick and heart patients and they could not climb stair case. A...
Kisanji Mirpuri S.K. Developers Vs. Charu
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against order dtd.14.02.2011 passed by District Forum, Nagpur in CC/10/142 by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that the complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party (for short œthe O.P.?) who is a property developer, for construction of a house called as Duplex for consideration of Rs.5.20 Lacs. The complainant paid full consideration of the house to the O.P. The O.P. after construction of the house executed registered sale-deed of that house in favour of the complainant on 01.10.2008 and gave its possession to the complainant on 08.10.2008. However, when the complainant paid visit to that house, he found many deficiencies / defects in that house, which were water taps were not fixed to the pipeline, wash basin was not installed, water supply was not started, the compound wall was incomplete and it was not having plaster, t...
Transport Corporation of India Ltd and Another Vs. Madhu Mittal
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 23.10.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.137 dated 19.6.2009 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed with the direction to the opposite party to pay the amount of consignment i.e. Rs. 1,07,120/-, compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. In case of non-compliance of the order pay interest @ 9% per annum. 2. The complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called œthe complainant?) against the opposite parties on the allegations that he booked one consignment containing sample of safety lock for 16 mm wire rope with opposite parties vide builty No. 108622566 dated 5.12.2008 worth Rs. 1,04,000/- including 3% CST/ST, Rs. 3120/-, total Rs. 1,07,120/- to de...
Light Bite Foods Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Himmat Iqbal Singh Jakhar
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Mr. Justice Sham Sunder, President- 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.10.2013, 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 opinion that the present complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. The opposite parties are directed as under :” (i) to refund the amount of Rs.5,500/- to the complainant received against the bill amount of Rs.5,413/-; (ii) to pay Rs.77,040/- to the complainant being the amount spent by him for his hospitalization/treatment at the Fortis Hospital; (iii) to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and trauma undergone by him after eating at their restaurant; (iv) to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. This order b...
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Manager Vs. Dr. Rajesh ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
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 5.10.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No. 25 dated 14.6.2012 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed with the direction to OP No. 1 to pay Rs. 5 lacs to the complainant/decree holder and compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. 2. The complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called œthe complainant?) against the opposite party on the allegations that he purchased Honda City Car bearing Engine / Chassis No. 001721/001172, bearing registration No. PB-32-H-0070 having insured with OP vide Policy No. 235402/31/2011/7665 from 28.11.2010 to 27.11.2011. However, during the insurance policy on 30.7.2011 it met with an accident on Garhshanker-Nawanshah...
Balraj Singh Vs. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Gurdev Singh, President: 1. This appeal has been preferred by Balraj Singh, appellant/complainant against the order dated 8.3.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mohali (in short, œDistrict Forum?), vide which the complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for the issuance of directions to the respondent/opposite party to refund the entire loss of Rs.1,80,000/- suffered by him and to pay Rs.50,000/- for the physical strain and the mental agony suffered by him and his family members and Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of the complaint, was dismissed. As per the averments, made in the complaint, he purchased one vehicle bearing registration No.CH-03W-4395 from one Gurjit Singh on 12.6.2011 and duly submitted the documents for the transfer of the ownership in his name. He had obtained a package policy for the vehicle from the opposite party, the face value of which was Rs.1,80,000/- and the effective date of that policy was 10.3....
- ‹ Prev
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- Next ›
- Last »