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.
Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs. Gurmeet Singh
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
S.C.Jain, Member: 1) This appeals has been filed by the appellant against the order dt. 06.01.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 173/2009. 2) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/complainant who is a Senior Citizen became unemployed on closure of super bazaar in 2002 and became a victim of deficiency in service on the part of appellant/OP i.e. HDFC Bank (erstwhile centurion bank of Punjab).? The respondent No.1/complainant was maintain a saving bank account No. 13091000020087 and was having three FDRs of 40,000/- each with erstwhile centurion bank of Punjab.? The FDRs matured in the month of February 2008 and proceeds were credited in respondent No. 1/complainant saving bank account.? The respondent No.1/complainant approach the bank for renewal of the FDR for another year.? On that day some lady staff member of the bank told him that a new scheme has been launched in which he has not to pay anything extra and i...
Gurmeet Singh Dhindsa and Another Vs. Emaar Mgf Land Ltd. and Others
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. The brief facts of the case are that the complainants booked a residential bungalow measuring 300 Sq. Yards in the project of the Opposite Parties known as œThe Bungalows? at Mohali (TBM-300-AP-521) and paid Rs.5 Lacs on 14.8.2009 towards booking of the said property alongwith application form, vide receipt (Annexure C-1). It was stated that the possession of the property was assured to be handed over within 24 months from the date of execution of the Buyers Agreement dated 21.10.2009 (Annexure C-3). It was further stated that on 16.9.2009, the complainant remitted further sum of Rs.4.90 Lacs and availed of a loan of Rs.52.80 lacs from HDFC Ltd. vide sanction letter (Annexure C-2). It was further stated that the property was to be handed over to the complainants by September 2011. It was further stated that in January 2010, a sum of Rs.13.20 Lacs was paid by the financier (HDFC) to Opposite Party No.1 and, as such, a total sum of Rs.23.10 Lacs stood paid on be...
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Nellikunnu ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
Smt. Santhamma Thomas : Member Feeling aggrieved of the impugned order, this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 has been preferred by the Appellant against the judgment passed by the Learned District Forum, Kasaragod (hereinafter the Lower Forum), on 19th day of July, 2012, in C.C.No.272/2011, filed on 22/10/2011, wherein the Lower Forum Below ordered to cancel bills issued on 8/10/11 for consumer No.1007-3 for amount Rs. 17,067/- and Consumer No.1158-6 to amount Rs.33,576/- Ext. A1 bills dated 29/02/2012 to be set aside. 2. 1st Respondent runs a small hotel and has a two electricity connection at his premises vide consumer no.1007-3 and Consumer No.1158-6. On 08/10/11 respondent received two bills at an exorbitant rates than usually which he receives and hence he made an enquiry with appellants, he was informed that bills are issued as a penalty for keeping two meters in a same room. The said meters were there in the shop room even before 1972 and the opposite...
Gurpreet Singh and Another Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., an ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
(Order) Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The appellants/complainants (hereinafter called œthe complainants?) have filed the present appeal against the order dated 1.10.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No. 735 dated 11.11.2011 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainants against the opposite parties on the allegations that he got Happy Family Floater Policy from OP on 8.12.2009 for a sum of Rs. 2 lacs, getting insurance for himself as well as his wife Harpinder Kaur and daughter Shagan Preet Kaur and Mannat Preet Kaur and was issued cover note No. 233500/48/2010/1695. However, his daughter Mannat Preet Kaur suffered ailment and was admitted in the PGI, Chandigarh on 25.7.2010 and its intimation was given to OP No. 3 on 26.8.2010 and 13.9.2010 regarding shifting from PGI, Chandigarh to CMC, ...
M/S. Nelcon Enterprises and Another Vs. Blasio Dias and Another
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. This appeal has been filed by OP Nos.2 and 3 in C.C. No.30/12 and is directed against order dated 28/06/2013 of the Lr. South Goa District Forum. 2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose off this appeal. 3. The Complainant (Respondent No.1 herein) purchased a Godrej Refrigerator from the local outlet of OP No.1 (Respondent No.2 herein) on 16/08/06 for a sum of Rs.15,250/-. According to the Complainant, he purchased the said refrigerator because it was widely advertised of having an assured guarantee of 10 years rust free warranty. 4. The case of the Complainant is that within two years of purchase, the door of the refrigerator got rusty at the corners which fact was reported to OP No.1, the dealer, telephonically, and the Complainant was informed that the said rust patch was negligible but within the next four years the rust extended at all the corners and inspite of telephonic requests no action was taken by OP No.1, the dealer. The Complainant wro...
Executive Engineer and Another Vs. Yogendra Prasad Agrawal
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
(Order) R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.04.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (henceforth referred to "District Forum") in complaint case no.66/2010, whereby the appellants / OPs have been jointly and severally directed that the amount of Rs.60,662/-, which was paid by the complainant / respondent be adjusted from the bill of month of June and July, 2010 on the basis of previous 5 months' average bill and after adjustment, if any amount is refundable, balance amount be returned to the respondent with interest @ 6% p.a. and also awarded Rs.2,000/- towards advocate fee and cost of litigation within a period of two months from the date of order. If the amount is not paid by the OPs within the stipulated period, the same will carry interest @ 6% p.a. 2. The case of the respondent / complainant before the District Forum, are that the complainant / respondent obtained three electric connections in his premises and ser...
M/S. Sandeep Gas Agency Vs. Sakharam Tatoba Sutar and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member: 1. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 11.07.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur in Consumer Complaint No.210/2012. 2. The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under: œThe Complainant/Respondent is a Gas connection holder of the Opponent No.1. He had applied for the gas cylinder on 20.01.2012 and according to Complainant the cylinder should have been delivered to him within 48 hours. On enquiring with the Opponent No.1 he could not get the proper response and was asked to take delivery from Opponent No.1s shop. The Opponent No.1 delivered the cylinder on 09.03.2012 i.e. after a gap of 48 days. On 17.03.2012 also he had booked the cylinder, however, the cylinder was delivered after a gap of 47 days. It is contended by the Complainant that after the booking within 48 hours the cylinder is to be delivered. Alleging non-supply of the cylinder within a reasonable time amounts to deficiency in serv...
United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Through Divisional Manager Vs. Sayanna ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by original opponent against the judgment and order dated 23.10.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum Nanded in C.C.No.25/03 whereby the complaint is allowed. Respondent is legal heir of the original complainant. For the better understanding appellant which is insurance company is hereafter referred as opponent insurance company and respondent as the complainant. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that, mother of complainant Smt.Bhojabai w/o Sayanna was the member of œGodjewali Seva Sahakari Society Ltd.,Tq.Kinwat, Dist.Nanded?. That, the said society had obtained Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy for its members from opponent insurance company. Sum insured under the said policy was Rs.1 lakh. It is the case of complainant that on 7.7.2002 said Bhojabai had left the house for collecting firewood from the forest but did not return till the evening and even after two days inspite of making search by her family members and...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Ashok Kumar Goel
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President: 1. The facts of the case are that the OP Delhi Development Authority, in the year 1979, floated a scheme namely New Pattern Registration Scheme for allotment of MIG flats and issued a brochure containing terms and conditions of allotment. The complainant on the prescribed proforma issued by the OP, applied on 26.09.1979 for allotment of a flat by depositing Rs.4500/- as the registration fee for allotment of an MIG Flat, in his favour mentioning therein his address as 1891-A, Gali Leshwa, Kucha Pati Ram Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi -110006. Pursuant to the application given by the complainant, OP on 12.06.1980,? issued a registration certificate in his favour mentioning the same address. On 31.07.2002, there was draw and a flat on third floor bearing No.68, in sector -13, Pocket-A, Phase-II, Dwarka, New Delhi was allotted in favour of the complainant. The result of the draw was published in the leading newspapers, on notice board of the OP and also on the i...
Prem Pal Vs. Dr. Kamaljit Singh of Saini Hospital and Others
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
(Order) Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Applicant-appellant-complainant(in short the applicant?) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 29.11.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No. 728 of 4.11.2008 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed. 2. Alongwith the appeal, there is an application for condonation of delay of 306 days. It has been stated in the application that after getting the copy, he had engaged one Advocate, who failed to file the appeal and consequently, the appellant engaged an other Advocate, who filed the appeal, as a result of which there is delay of 306 days, which is not intentional, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned. Additional affidavit was also filed by the applicant/complainant that the certified copy of the order was delivered to the counsel Sh. S.P. Singh Gill, who deliv...
- ‹ Prev
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- Next ›
- Last »