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.Telco Construction Equipment Co.Ltd. Rep.by Its Zonal Head and Oth ...
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 parties prefer an appeal in F.A.No.823/2008 praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.80/2003, dated 20.06.2008, while the complainant filed an appeal in F.A.No.431/2010, for enhancement.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member The complainant is a registered partnership firm carrying on business of construction and other commercial activities purchased an Earth Excavator as Tata JD 315SE Back Hoe loader from the opposite parties 1 and 2 for Rs.16,00,000/- for which the opposite parties 3 and 4 financed the amount. The complainant alleged that on the date of delivery of the vehicle the opposite parties 1 and 2 did not have a trade license to sell the same in Tamil Nadu and thereby the complainant was not in a position to register the vehicle with registering authorities for want of neces...
M/S. B.J. JaIn and Sons Vs. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: 1. Complainant is a venture dealing in business of jewellers and filed this consumer complaint alleging deficiency of service against the opponent/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. for not settling the claim payable under the Insurance Policy for loss of silver due to robbery which was destined to be sent through courier. The complainant preferred this consumer complaint claiming amount of Rs.6,77,395/- as compensation with ancillary relief of Rs.1 Lakh for loss of reputation, Rs.5,000/- for expenses incurred, Rs.10,000/- for mental torture and Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation. 2. The short issue involved in this case is as to whether courier whose services were availed by the complainant for dispatch of silver are Angadia or not as the Insurance Policy availed by the complainant covers transit insurance for transport of silver through Angadia for sum assured of Rs.10 Lakhs. 3. Opponent/Insurance Company vehemently opposed the consumer complaint by filing written...
M/S. Tata Motors Limited Vs. Alka Sharma and Others
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
(Order) Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The appellant/OP No. 1 (hereinafter called œOP No. 1?) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.257 dated 10.6.2010 vide which the complaint filed by the respondent No.1/complainant(hereinafter called the complainant) was allowed with the direction to opposite party No. 1 to pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost and compensation and refund a sum of Rs. 21,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. to the complainant. 2. The complaint was filed by complainant against the opposite parties on the allegations that she has purchased a new black Tata Ace Magic Engine No. 275ID105BRZ51 2291, Chassis No. 445111CRZR12592 for Rs. 2,89,500/- in cash vide bill No. 0000595 dated 7.8.2008 from OP No. 1 and it was registered in her name bearing Registration No. PB03-4415. However, the aforesaid v...
Gagandeep Singh Vs. Gagandeep Singh and Others
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.11.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant and directed the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, as under:- œ12. In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, are directed to:- [a] To pay Rs.1000/- incurred by the Complainant for testing of the mineral water bottle by the Food Analyst Punjab, Chandigarh; [b] To pay Rs.25,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and harassment to the Complainant;[c] To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation; 13. The ...
Prof. K. Gopinathan Vs. M.D. India and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President 1. This is a Revision Petition filed under section-17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against the order of the CDRF, Kollam dated, December 06, 2013 returned his complaint stating that Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 2. The revision petitioner/complainant had taken a medi-claim policy from the opposite parties on 26.10.2010. He has undergone treatment in Travancore Medical College Hospital, Kollam from 18.5.2013 to 23.05.2013. Inspite of repeated request the opposite parties did not sanction the final bill. Therefore he has filed a complaint before the Forum claiming the balance amount of Rs.8,607/- and a compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 3. The Forum returned the complaint stating that it has no territorial jurisdiction as the 1st opposite party is at Pune and 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are at Ernakulam, by the impugned order dated:6.12.2013. But on going through the complaint (revision petitioner has produced a copy o...
Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another Vs. Saroj Bala
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Gurdev Singh, President: 1. Vijay Kumar Kochhar (deceased) purchased life insurance policy bearing No.165050321 on 24.5.2011 from the opposite parties (LIC) and the sum assured was Rs.3,50,000/-. The mode of payment of the premium was half-yearly and he paid the first premium of Rs.25,000/-. He appointed his wife, Saroj Bala, complainant, as his nominee. On 9.11.2011 he died due to sudden heart attack and the complainant, being the nominee, demanded from LIC the sum assured i.e. Rs.3,50,000/-, by submitting his death certificate. She was asked to submit the necessary documents for claiming the said amount and she did accordingly. She received a letter dated 31.7.2012 from the LIC regarding the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- but only a cheque of Rs.19,870.36P was sent along with that letter. She asked the LIC to pay the total amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. In the complaint filed by her under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patia...
Devinder Kumar Vs. Hdfc Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. and Anoth ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.08.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it disposed of the Consumer Complaint bearing No.391 of 2013, filed by the complainants (now appellant) and directed the Opposite Parties (now respondents), as under:- œIn view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that no deficiency in service is proved or established against the OPs. However, since the complainant has not got the cheque of Rs.1,76,187.91P encashed, which was sent by the OPs (Ann.R-7) nor it has been disputed by the OPs, therefore, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this complaint with directions to the OPs to issue fresh cheque of the said amount i.e. Rs.1,76,187.91P in favour of the complainant and send it to him forthwith. We order accordingly. There is no order as to compensation and costs.? 2. The facts, in brie...
Brilliant Classes Vs. Saroj Rawat
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Oral Judgment:?????????S.C. JAIN: 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order? dated 23.2.2012 of District Forum III, Janakpuri, New Delhi passed in Complaint Case No. 39/09. 2. The brief facts leading to the complaint are that the complainants daughter Ms. Shilpa Rawat joined two years coaching course with the appellant/OP in the year 2008 in its Janakpuri Branch. She attended the classes from May, 2008 to November, 2008 and thereafter she stopped attending the classes as she was not satisfied? with the standard of coaching? of the appellant/OP institute.? The respondent/complainant requested the appellant/OP to refund the fees, but, on not receiving any response from the appellant/OP, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum and the District Forum after hearing the matter ordered the appellant/OP to refund? of 50% of Rs. 42,000/- i.e. Rs. 21,000/-, which was the advance fee taken by the appellant/OP for second year of coaching for ...
S. Nahar Singh Vs. S. Karnail Singh Bhullar and Another
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
Gurdev Singh, President: 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant, Nahar Singh, against the order dated 9.1.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short, œDistrict Forum?), vide which the complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, œthe Act?) for directing the respondents/opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental tension, agony, loss of reputation so suffered by him and to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, was dismissed. 2. As per the averments made in the complaint, the complainant on 13.6.2011 presented before Sub Registrar one Memorandum of Oral Family Partition dated 28.2.2011 for registration, which was optional under Section 18 of the Registration Act and complied with all the formalities and rules. He, along with the identifying witnesses, was called and photograph was taken but the document was neither registered nor the registrat...
Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. A. Sadayappan a ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2014
(The Appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant / 2nd opposite party filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.377/2003, dated 19.12.2006. This appeal 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 2nd opposite party is the appellant. 2. The 1st Respondent / complainant had made 4 various fixed deposits with the 1st opposite party bank for Rs.27,256/- on 17.1.2002 for a period of 30 months and for Rs.35,607/- for 13 months and Rs.55,486/- for a period of 182 days and for Rs.16,500/- for 6 months. The 1st and 2nd deposits were made on 17.1.2002 and 3rd deposit was made on 20....
- ‹ Prev
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- Next ›
- Last »