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.
Koushalya Fatnani Vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd,
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 13.10.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.CC/09/64, whereby the complaint of the appellant / complainant, has been dismissed on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation and the complainant does not come in the category of consumer. 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 the complainant Koushalya Fatnani is resident of near Ram Mandir, Shanti Nagar, Raipur and she was having a Grinding Unit namely Vinayak Pisai Udyog at Shanti Nagar, Raipur. She had obtained electric connection bearing No.143151 for running that Unit from the OP Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (henceforth called "Electricity Board") and a meter was installed. The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum, w...
The Divisional Manager and Others Vs. Rajkumar Soni
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
Oral (Order) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.02.2013 passed District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.1014/2011, whereby the complaint of the respondent / complainant, has been partly allowed. 2. The appellants/OPs have preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 25.02.2013, passed by the District Forum and also filed application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard 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 cause has been shown ...
M/S Sunil Somvanshi and Company, Through Its Prop. Mr. Sunil Laxman So ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-09-2014
K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. These are the cross appeals filed against common judgment and order dated 4.11.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Aurangabad in C.C.No.18/2007 whereby the complaint is partly allowed. Appellant in appeal No.1254/2008 is the original opponent who is promoters and builders whereas appellant in appeal No.1256/2008 is the original complainant. For the better understanding the appellant in appeal No.1254/2008 who is respondent in appeal No.1256/2008 is herein after termed as œopponent builder? and appellant in appeal No.1256/2008 who is respondent in 1254/2008 is hereinafter termed as the original complainant. 2. Appeal No.1254/2008 filed by opponent builder is for setting aside the impugned judgment and order, whereas appeal No.1256/2008 filed by original complainant is for the enhancement of the compensation. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is same we have decided to dispose them off by a common judgment. 3. The facts of the complainants case...
Punjab National Bank Vs. Mrs. Meena
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
S.C. Jain? (Member) 1) The present appeal has been filed against the order dt.25.02.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VII, Sheikh Sarai-II, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. DF-VII/434/06. 2) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant is having a joint saving account No. 011026 with her husband Sh. Kiran Pal Maan in Nangloi, Delhi, Branch of Punjab National Bank.? Since the opening of the account the respondent/complainant got issued only two cheque books in their name from the appellant/OP bank, one cheque book bearing No. 278851 to 278860 and other cheque book bearing No. 658041 to 658060.? The cheque book bearing No. 278851 to 278860 had already been exhausted by the respondent/complainant and the respondent/complainant is using the cheque book containing the serial No. 658041 to 658060 and apart from these cheque books sometimes the complainant used the loose cheque also issued by the OP bank from time to time proper record for the sam...
Avtar Singh Hundal and Others Vs. Parsvnath Developers Limited and Oth ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. The facts, in brief, are that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, had widely advertised their project, in the name and style of œParsvnath Prideasia?, Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technology Park, Chandigarh, envisaging the sale of residential flats, to be developed, and constructed by them, on the land of Opposite Party No.3. The complainants, who are Non-Residential Indians, with an intention to have a residential unit, applied for the allotment of the same (residential unit), consisting of two bedrooms, measuring 1700 square feet super area, vide application form, acknowledgment receipt Annexure C-1 whereof, was issued by Opposite Party No.1. An amount of Rs.6,07,750/-, as earnest money, was also paid by the complainants, towards the said unit. The complainants were allotted flat No.104, First Floor, Block No.D1, in Parsvnath Prideasia, Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technology Park, Chandigarh, vide allotment letter dated 08.04.2008/25.04.2008, copy whereof is...
Atulya Sood Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solan, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondent, seeking a direction to the respondent to pay Rs.1,14,532/-, with interest at the rate of 18.5% on account of insurance money and compensation, has been dismissed. 2. Appellant had taken a policy from the respondent, covering risk of his death and injuries sustained in personal accident. Policy was effective from 11.09.2009 to 10.09.2010. Appellant allegedly suffered an injury of left Achilles tendon, which caused temporary total disablement from 21.10.2009 to 03.03.2010. Besides being unable to pursue and follow his occupation during the aforesaid period, he spent a sum of Rs.8,532/- on treatment. He lodged a claim with the respondent seeking reimbursement of medical expenses and also compensation for the pe...
Ramlal Vs. Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd., a ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
(Order) R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.04.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mahasamund (C.G.) (henceforth called "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.31/2011, 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 facts of the case of the complainant before the District Forum in brief are that the complainant is resident of Lohrin Dongari and he had agricultural land at that village. The complainant/appellant had obtained electric connection of 5 HP for operating motor pump from the respondents/OPs on 11.08.1997. He paid was paying the electricity bill regularly. Due to shortage of water, the complainant/appellant moved an application before the OPs/respondents for reducing the concerned load from 5 HP to 3 HP, but the OPs did not respond the same, therefore, the complainant moved applications before the OPs on 09.12...
Anand Nagari Urban Credit Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs. Walmik
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.09.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum, Parbhani partly allowing consumer complaint No.105/2008 directing the appellant/opponent credit society to pay to the complainant amount of shares of Rs.75,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. and further compensation Rs.500/- and Rs.500/- more towards cost of the proceeding. (For the sake of brevity the appellant is hereinafter referred as the œopponent society? and respondent as the œcomplainant?. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that, opponent is a credit society. It advances loan to its members. The complainant is a member of opponent society since the year 2007. On 30.09.2007 the opponent society received amount Rs.7500/- from the complainant towards shares and issued share certificate. Loan Rs.30,000/- was advanced to the complainant and out of the loan, the amount of shares was deducted. According to the complai...
Subhendu Halder Vs. M/S. Tapas Tradding Corporation and Another
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
Mrs. Mridula Roy, Ld. Member The instant Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt. 28.9.2012 passed by the Ld. DCDRF, North 24 Parganas in C.C.Case No. 259 of 2011 dismissing the petition of complaint on contest without cost.Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order the complainant has preferred the instant Appeal on the grounds stating, inter alia, that a petition filed by him on 27.7.2012 praying for laboratory test of a battery, i.e. the goods in question, has not been disposed of by the Ld. District Forum, but the final order has already been passed. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased a battery from the OP No. 1 on 18.6.2010, manufactured by the OP No. 2 at a consideration of `10,500/-. The said battery was under warranty coverage of 24 months from the date of purchase. The complainant alleged that the said battery had not been working smoothly since the date of purchase. However, on 22.6.2011 the said battery exploded. Th...
Santosh Bansal Vs. Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd. and Another
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.11.2013, vide which, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), came to the conclusion that since the complainant (now appellant) had received the actual decretal amount, within the appropriate time, as directed by it, the Criminal Petition bearing No.67 of 2013, stood disposed of. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant filed the Consumer Complaint bearing No.28 of 2012, alleging that he had purchased Aviva Health Plus Policy bearing No. NHP 3069387, from Opposite Party No.1, by paying a premium of Rs.15,628/-, vide cheque no. 561891 dated 30.03.2011, for the sum assured of Rs.1,50,000/-. On 14.07.2011, the complainant felt acute onset of chest pain, radiating to left arm, with sweating, and she was rushed to the Alchemist Hospital, Panchkula, for evaluation and management. According to the discharge summary Anne...
- ‹ Prev
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- Next ›
- Last »