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.
Praveen Gupta, Haridwar Vs. M/S. Delhi Apartments Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This is complainants appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 09.06.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 128 of 2009, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite party “ respondent to pay sum of Rs. 12,24,400/- to the complainant “ appellant together with liquidated damages of Rs. 12,888/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 1,500/-. However, the learned President of the District Forum per his even dated dissenting order, allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite party “ respondent to pay sum of Rs. 12,24,400/- to the complainant “ appellant together with interest @8% p.a. from the date of deposit till payment and Rs. 50,000/- towards damages. Feeling dissatisfied with the relief awarded by the District Forum vide their majority decision, the complainant has filed this appeal for enhancement. 2. Briefly st...
Harmit Singh Vs. C.G.S.P.D.C.L., Dangania, Raipur and Another
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 28.12.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.271/2011, whereby the complaint of the appellant / complainant has been dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by that order, this appeal has been filed by the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant before the District Forum in brief are that an electricity connection was installed at the residence of the complainant / appellant in his father's name, Shri Rawel Singh bearing Service no. 100231853/37473068-01-040687. According to electric consumption, electricity bill has been regularly deposited per month by the complainant. The employee of the OPs, Electricity Board comes every month for recording meter reading and the electric meter has been shown O.K. every month, which proves that the electric meter is in fine condition. Electric meter has been inspected by the employee and officers of ...
Raj Kumar Vs. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and Others
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
(Order) Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The appellant/complainant (hereinafter called œthe complainant?) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 10.5.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala (hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.34 dated 2.2.2011 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) against the opposite parties on the allegations that he purchased medi-claim policy No. 361602/34/09/11/00000018 from OP No. 2 at Barnala for the period from 18.6.2010 to 17.6.2011 and was insured for Rs. 1 lac and his wife Mrs. Raj Kamal was insured for Rs. 1.5 lacs. It has been further alleged that on 13.9.2010 the complainant felt some difficulty in breathing and he went to CMC Hospital, Ludhiana. The Doctors of the Op checked himself and advised himself for thorough che...
Sbi Life Insurance Company Ltd. and Another Vs. Lalitha Subhashrao Chi ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
K.B. Gawali, Member: 01. This appeal is preferred by the original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 against the judgment and order dated 20/02/2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum in complaint case No. 226/2007 whereby the complaint is partly allowed by holding appellants liable for deficiency in service. The respondent No. 1 is the original complainant, whereas the respondent No. 2 is the agent of appellants. For better understanding the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 hereinafter jointly termed as "Opponent insurance company ", the respondent No. 1 as the "complainant" and respondent No. 2 as the agent of opponent insurance company. 02. Facts giving rise to this appeal are as under : That, the complainant is the mother of deceased Sachin Subhashrao Chidrawar . That, the deceased Sachin during his life time had obtained insurance policy No. 2402084501 from the opponent insurance company having the death benefit of Rs 5,00,000/- and critical illness of Rs 5,00,000/- w.e.f.from 12/01/2007. That, after...
The Branch Manager, the Dhanalekshmi Bank, Perunna, Changanassery and ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
Mrs. Santhamma Thomas: Member This is an appeal against the order dated 30/07/2012 in CC No.98/05 filed on 28/01/2005 passed by the Learned District Consumer Redressal Forum, Thrissur (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which the Appellants/Respondents at the Lower Forum are directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs to the complainant and time for compliance two months from the date of receipt of the order, otherwise the amount shall carry 12% interest till the date of realization. 2. Brief facts are that the Respondent participated at an auction conducted appellants to which a public notice for inviting bid were advertised in a newspaper for auction of autorikshaw. On 05/072004 the respondent made his bid for the autorikshaw bearing Reg. No.KL8J4992 with respondents and 1st appellant confirming the auction and on receiving the amount handed over the vehicle to respondent. However respondents never received the original documents from the appe...
Mata Gujri College, Fatehgarh Sahib, Through Its Director/Principal 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/opposite parties (hereinafter called œthe opposite parties?) have filed the present appeal against the order dated 15.6.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No. 104 dated 26.3.2012 was allowed with the direction to the opposite parties to refund the fee after deduction of Rs. 1,000/- as processing fee and Ops were directed to refund a sum of Rs. 48,446/- within one month from the receipt of the order. 2. The complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called œthe complainant?) against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant got admission in MBA 1st year with Ops in the academic session 2011-12 and after clearance in the counselling she was asked to deposit the requisite fee with OP No. 1 upto 25.7.2011 and accordingly, he deposited a sum of Rs. 49,446...
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through Its Divisional Manager Vs ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.08.2013, passed in Consumer Complaint No.74/2012 by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu, H.P., whereby the opposite party was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. VS. Smt. Rukmani Devi) realization. The opposite party was further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for mental harassment and Rs.3,000/- as costs of the litigation. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the complaint. 2. Facts of the case within narrow compass are that the complainant who is owner of Mahindra and Mahindra pick up jeep bearing registration number HP-34B-0393, had insured his vehicle with the opposite party w.e.f 08.04.2008 to 07.04.2009. On 10.05.2008, driver Anil Kumar had taken the jeep towards Banjar, but he di...
The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, (Old Nedungadi Bank) Thrikka ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the second opposite party in OP.No.152/04 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad challenging the order of the Forum dated, August 30, 2005 directing the appellant/second opposite party bank to return the cheque presented by complainant for collection with necessary endorsement and to pay a cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in his complaint and in his proof affidavit filed before the Forum in brief is this: Towards Rs.1,60,000/- due to the complainant his friend Balakrishnan issued cheque No.768107 dated:12.9.2002 drawn on his account maintained in the appellant/second opposite party, M/s Nedungadi Bank now M/s Punjab National Bank, Thrikkannapuram Branch. The said cheque was presented for collection through first opposite party State Bank of Mysore, Palakkad Branch on 3.2.2003. The first opposite party has sent the cheque for collection to the second opposite party on the same day. On 28.6.2003 complainant recei...
Parminder Singh and Another Vs. Angrej Singh
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
Gurdev Singh, President: 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants-complainants against the order dated 31.12.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (in short, œDistrict Forum?), vide which their complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, œthe Act?) was dismissed with liberty to them to approach the civil court. They averred in their complaint that they entered into an agreement on 31.10.2012 with the respondent/opposite party, who claimed himself as Building Finishing Job Contractor, for executing finishing jobs (interior emulsion, exterior emulsion, wooden polish and synthetic enamel etc.) of their newly constructed house situated in Village Lodhipur, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Roopnagar, for Rs.1,00,000/-. As per the terms of the agreement, the opposite party was required to complete the entire finishing job by way of superior quality workmanship, best engineering practice and superior quality...
Chief Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Dis. Co. Ltd. and Anothe ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This appeal is an exception to the judgment and order dated 15.11.2007 passed by the District Forum, Beed in consumer complaint No.41/2007, whereby the complaint is partly allowed. The appellants are the officers of the MSEDCL who are original opponents (hereinafter referred as œopponents?), whereas respondent is the original complainant (hereinafter referred as œcomplainant?). 2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the complainant had obtained electric connection to his Municipal house No.929 situated at Ambajogai, District Beed since the year 1997 having meter No.R-5581. That for the last 17-18 years he had been regularly paying the electric bills. That on 10.02.2006 there was a sudden increase in the power supply due to which his TV caught fire and subsequently the said fire spread in his house in which the other articles such as mixture, fan, iron, utensils, the windows and doors of the house and the cash of Rs.10,000/- was burnt. It was...
- ‹ Prev
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- Next ›
- Last »