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.
Manish Verma and Another Vs. Sunny
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.09.2012, passed in Consumer Complaint No.121/2011 by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Una, H.P., whereby the opposite parties were held jointly and severally liable and directed to refund/pay Rs.7.60 lacs alongwith interest @9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 28.10.2011 till the said amount is paid or realized. Opposite parties were further directed to pay Rs.1.00 lacs, as punitive compensation and costs of the complaint which was assessed at Rs.5,000/-. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the complaint. 2. Facts of the case as they emerged from the complaint file are that after passing the intermediate examination in medical stream, he was interested to get the admission in the M.B.B.S. Course and he saw advertisements in different newspapers that opposite parties are running Medical Collage in the name of Swami Institute of...
i.C.i.C.i. Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd, and Another Vs. Rekha Ra ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
Oral (Order) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.12.2011 passed District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.59/2011 whereby the complaint of the respondent / complainant, has been allowed. 2. The appellant/O.P. has preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 28.12.2011, 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 a part...
Assistant Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 9.6.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Nanded in C.C.No.59/2008 whereby the complaint is allowed by holding the appellant to have committed deficiency in service. (For the sake of brevity appellants are herein after referred as "opponents" whereas respondent as "the complainant".) 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that :- complainant had obtained the electric connection from opponents for his agriculture power pump installed on the borewell situated in land admeasuring 60R in Gut No.239 owned by him. It is also contended by him that land from Gut No.688 admeasuring 40R was also being irrigated from this power pump. It is submitted by him that there was regular electric supply up to year 2003. However, on 9.10.2003 it was noticed that the aluminum wire on the electric poles was stolen and crime No.88/2003 was also registered with the police. That, due to the said theft o...
Shivaji Tukaram Ambekar Vs. Dr. B. S. Patil
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
Oral Order: R. C. Chavan, President: [1] Heard Adv. Umesh Mangave on behalf of the Appellant and Dr. Gopinath Shenoy, authorized representative on behalf of the Respondent. [2] Today this appeal has been listed on Board for hearing on admission. Dr. Gopinath Shenoy, authorized representative of the Respondent contended that the appeal itself is barred by limitation since the Appellant had in fact received the impugned order on 19/04/2010, as mentioned by the Appellant in paragraph (01) of the appeal memo itself and, therefore, filing of the present appeal on 19/04/2011 is hopelessly time-barred. This contention has to be rejected firstly because even according to the gist of order-sheet which he has made available for my perusal, on 19/04/2010, the Appellant/Complainant was absent and the complaint was not admitted by the Forum. Respondent cannot take advantage of clerical error in paragraph (01) of the appeal memo where the words should have been used as decided on or rejected on. Thi...
Shaikh Sadulla Abdul Gafur Samda Vs. Tata Motor Finance Ltd. and Other ...
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 judgment and order dated 17.10.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Nanded, partly allowing C.C.No.227/2008 directing opponent finance company to pay to complainant compensation of Rs.2000/- and Rs.1000/- towards cost of the proceedings and further to return cheque etc. (For the sake of brevity appellant is herein after referred as complainant and respondent as opponent finance company) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- On 3.1.2004 complainant Shaikh Sadulla purchased Tata Sumo jeep bearing registration number as MH-26-741 for Rs.3,14,000/- by borrowing loan of Rs.3,14,000/- from opponent No.1 finance company. It was agreed by complainant to repay the loan amount with interest by 47 monthly instalment of Rs.8870/-. Accordingly complainant executed deed of agreement in favour of opponent No.1 finance company hypothecating the vehicle. As per complainant he has paid 45 monthly instalment...
Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Dinkar Baliram Lute and Anot ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
N. Arumugam, Member: This is an appeal filed by the original o.p. No.1 against the orders dtd.20.10.2008 and 26.05.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum, Nagpur directing in Consumer Complaint No. CC/08/194 directing the o.p. No.1 to pay Rs. 1,07,950/- as sickness benefit and Rs.18,000/- towards permanent disable benefit and Rs.10,000/- towards physical and mental harassment and Rs.3,000/- towards the cost of proceedings. The facts of the case in brief are as under:- 1. The complainant was working as peon in All India Reporters Pvt Ltd, Congressnagar, Nagpur and this unit is covered under the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act 1948 (for short ESI Act) and the complainant is a insured person under the said provision. The complainant was suffering from Para Parasis of loss of bladder and bowl sensation hence, the complainant was certified ESI Leave for the period 17.05.2003 to 21.02.2005 and the payment was made to the complainant as extended sickness benefit. According to ...
Rekha Arun Salvi Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Through Its ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 5.3.2008 passed by Dist.Consumer Forum Parbhani dismissing the consumer complaint No.213/2007. (For the sake of brevity appellant is herein after referred as complainant and respondent as 'opponent insurance company') 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- Late Arun Salvi who was the husband of complainant Smt.Rekha died on 9.8.2006 by heart attack. On 2.1.2006 he had obtained LIC policy covering risk of Rs.50,000/- from opponent. After his death his widow complainant Smt.Rekha submitted the claim with opponent LIC. As per the terms and conditions of the policy deceased paid monthly premiums till the month of June 2006. However the opponent repudiated her claim on the ground that while submitting insurance proposal deceased Arun suppressed the material information about his illness. Therefore complainant has filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on t...
H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. Vs. Sudhakar Deoman Bodkhe
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
Jayshree Yengal, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26/02/2010 passed by District Consumer Forum Akola in consumer complaint No. 266/09 partly allowing the complaint and directing the O.P. /appellant herein to issue œNo dues Certificate? to the complainant /respondent herein and also restraining the O.P. from demanding any amount on any count, and directing the opponent to pay compensation Rs.50,000/- towards mental and physical harassment and Rs.1000/- towards cost of proceeding. 2. Appellant “HDFC Bank Ltd. to be referred as opposite party and respondent-Sudhakar Devman Bodkhe to be referred as complainant for the sake of brevity. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are, 3. Complainant- Mr. Sudakar Bodkhe had availed loan of Rs.31600/- for purchase of two wheeler vehicle of model Hero Honda Splender Plus. He purchased a vehicle from M/s. Baheti Automobile, Akola. The complainant entered into an loan cum hypothecation agreement with the O.P. As p...
The Bajaj Auto Limited and Another Vs. Shaikh Rafiq Shaikh Osman and A ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 9.10.2006 passed by District Consumer Forum Beed partly allowing consumer complaint No.480/02 directing appellants/opponents 1 and 2 to pay to the respondent/complainant amount of Rs.73,845/- with interest @ 9% p.a. towards the cost of auto rickshaw and Rs.25,000/- more compensation for causing mental torture. (For the sake of brevity appellant is hereinafter referred as opponent and respondent No.1 as complainant , respondent No.2 as opponent No.3) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- Opponent No.1 Bajaj Auto Ltd. is manufacturing company and opponent No.1 Pagariya Auto Centre is dealer of opponent No.2, opponent No.3 Samarth Auto is service centre. On 18.12.2000 complainant purchased auto rickshaw from opponent No.2 for consideration of Rs.68,345/-. Complainant was also required to spend amount of Rs.5500/- towards registration charges. According to complainant th...
Manappuram Finance Limited and Others Vs. Smt. Nimisha Bakshi
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-08-2014
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Barasat, North 24-Parganas in case no.CC 362 of 2012 allowing the complaint and passing the order as follows: œHence ordered, that the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost against the opposite parties. Opposite parties jointly and severally are directed to hand over new gold ornament weighing about 70.2 gm (24K) as per choice and design selected by the complainant within one month from the date of this order but manufacturing cost and all other related cost shall be paid by the O.Ps and if complainant is not willing to take fresh/new ornaments of same quality in that case opposite parties jointly and severally shall have to pay a total composite penalty of Rs.4,00,000/- for loss of old gold ornaments with sentiment of the complainants family and complainant and for negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the O.Ps but same shall positively be deposited be...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »