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.
Hungry Bags Vs. Lt.Col. (Retd.) T.S. Bakshi 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 23.09.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant and directed Opposite Party No.1, as under:- œIn view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved his case against Opposite Party No.1 supported by documentary evidence as well as oral assertions. Therefore, the complaint stands allowed against OP No.1. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to compensate the complainant by paying Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant and his wife due to their deficient act. The Opposite Party No.1 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This order be complied with by the Opposite Party No.1 within a period of 30 days from the date of...
Amit Agrawal Vs. Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Limite ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
Oral (Order) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.09.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.19/2012 whereby the complaint of the respondent / complainant, has been partly allowed. 2. The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 19.09.2013, passed by the District Forum and also filed application under Section 15(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant on the application filed under Section 15(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 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 Coalfiel...
Shiv Prasad Sahu Vs. Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Company ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
Oral (Order) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.04.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum"), in Complaint Case No.39/2012. By the impugned order the complaint of the complainant/appellant has been dismissed with a direction that the complainant/appellant may file civil suit before the competent Civil Court. 2. The facts of the case of the complainant/appellant before the District Forum, briefly stated, are as under :- 2.1 The complainant/appellant is resident of Village Manikchauri, Police Station Pipariya, Tehsil and District Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) and he is an agriculturist by profession. The O.P. / respondent is a transport company and used to give loan for purchase of vehicles and also used to carry business of banking. The complainant/appellant purchased Mahindra Tractor 275 bearing registration No.C.G.04-DB-7539 along with trolley in the year 2007 at the price of Rs.5,00,000/-. The...
Shihab Vs. ââandsbquo;¬Åandldquo;al Mathjarurabihââandsbquo; ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
Smt. A. Radha : Member This appeal is preferred by the complainant against the Order in C.C.No.141/08 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant purchased marbles from opposite party for flooring work of his house. As suggested by the opposite party and on believing the words, complainant ordered for 950 sqft cut marbles. It is asserted in the complaint that the opposite party undertook the laying of marbles and polishing. The complainant paid Rs.1,10,500/- to the opposite party. On 26/12/2006 the amount was paid and started the work on 03/01/2007. The opposite party was very slow and it took around one year to finish the work. It was found that broken slabs were used for flooring which caused financial loss of Rs.3,50,000/- towards cost of marbles and laying charges. The complaint is filed to reimburse the cost incurred and for laying marble and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony. 3. In the version filed by the opposite par...
Tata Motors Finance Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Rama Shankar Yadav and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
Oral (Order) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.01.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.80/2010 whereby the complaint of the respondent no.1/ complainant, has been partly allowed. 2. The appellant/O.P.No.1 has preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 29.01.2013, passed by the District Forum and also filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 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 ...
K. Sudarsanan Vs. General Manager, Ksfe Ltd. and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC.202/12 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha challenging the order of the Forum dated, August 18, 2012 dismissing the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainant joined in a chitty conducted by KSFE, Mavelikkara Branch. He bid the chitty and obtained the amount on June 23, 2011. The opposite parties collected Rs.200/- for documentation charge and Rs.26/- as postal charge which they are not entitled to. The complainant claimed refund of the said amount and compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 3. First opposite party is General Manager, KSFE Limited, Thrissur. Second opposite party is its Branch Manager at Mavelikkara. They in their version contended that no excess amount is collected from the complainant and that chit amount has been already disbursed by the complainant. The Forum heard both sides and found that opposite parties have disbursed the entir...
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Institute of Homeopatic Medical Scien ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11/6/2010 passed by the District Consumer forum Amravati partly allowing the consumer complaint bearing no. 173 of 2001 thereby directing opponent/appellant herein to pay amount of Rs. 38525/- with 12 percent interest thereon to be calculated from 1.2.2001 and compensation of Rs. 10000/- towards mental and physical harassment and Rs. 1000/- more towards cost of proceedings. 2. Appellant to be referred as opponent and respondent to be referred as complainant for the sake of brevity. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:- 3. The complaint Gajanan Vitthalrao Kumbhalkar had taken admission in the first year of B.H.M.S. course conducted by the opponent Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Institute of Homeopathic Medical Science College. The admission/Selection for the said course is conducted by the state of Maharashtra, Department of Health Sciences. The complainant was selected for admission to Health Science courses 2000/01 i...
Amiya Kumar Roy Vs. Debasis Pradhan and Another
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
Sri Debasis Bhattacharya, Member Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 05.12.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Howrah, in Case No. 38/2012, the OP No.2 thereof has preferred this appeal. By the impugned judgment/order, the Ld. District Forum has allowed the case on contest against the OP No.1 and dismissed the same against the OP No.2 without costs, and directed the OP No.1 to effect the new electric connection after observing all technical formalities to the Complainants occupied portion at the schedule premises within 30 days from the date of the order. Further, the OP No.2 has been restrained from causing any disturbance during the process of effecting separate electric connection through the common passage of the Complainant as per schedule premises. However, if there be any resistance by anyone including the OP No.2 against such supply of electricity in the said common passage in the schedule premises, the OP No.1, WBSEDCL Authority shall be at liberty to t...
Shihab Vs. al Mathjarurabih, New Marble City
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-07-2014
Mrs. A. Radha : Member This appeal is preferred by the complainant against the Order in C.C.No.141/08 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant purchased marbles from opposite party for flooring work of his house. As suggested by the opposite party and on believing the words, complainant ordered for 950 sqft cut marbles. It is asserted in the complaint that the opposite party undertook the laying of marbles and polishing. The complainant paid Rs.1,10,500/- to the opposite party. On 26/12/2006 the amount was paid and started the work on 03/01/2007. The opposite party was very slow and it took around one year to finish the work. It was found that broken slabs were used for flooring which caused financial loss of Rs.3,50,000/- towards cost of marbles and laying charges. The complaint is filed to reimburse the cost incurred and for laying marble and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony. 3. In the version filed by the opposite par...
Sandwood Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vivek Mahajan
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.11.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant) as under:- œ10] In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed to refund an amount of Rs.49,280/- to the complainant. The OP is also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant for causing him mental tension, physical harassment as well as financial loss, apart from paying litigation cost of Rs.7000/-. This order be complied by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which it shall be liable to pay the above awarded amount of Rs.69,280/- (Rs.49,280/-+Rs.20,000/-) along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this...
- ‹ Prev
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- Next ›
- Last »