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.
Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Savita Devi ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
Oral (Order) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.03.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.143/2012 whereby the complaint of the respondent / complainant, has been partly allowed. 2. The appellant/O.P. has preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 19.03.2013, passed by the District Forum and also filed application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant on the application for condonation of delay. 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 party is not entitled to the condonati...
Uniphos Seeds and Biogenetic and Another Vs. Bhagwat Ramdas Patil
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 15.1.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum, Jalgaon in C.C.No.31/2007 whereby the complaint is partly allowed by holding appellant as responsible for deficiency in service. (For the sake of brevity appellant No.1 seed manufacturing company is herein after referred as "opponent seed company" whereas appellant No.2 is referred as "opponent dealer" and respondent as the "complainant"). 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- Complainant is a farmer having land admeasuring 5 acres from Gut No.30 of village Khirdi, Tq.Chopada, Dist.Jalgaon. It is submitted by complainant that he had purchased seeds of Papai Goldi on 26.12.2005 of lot No.61505 from opponent dealer. As regards cultivating of seeds he has submitted that he purchased six bags each containing 10 gm(wrongly mentioned as 10 kg) at rate of Rs.1750/- for each bag i.e. for the total amount of Rs.10,500/-. That, after t...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Limited and Another Vs. Gulab Road Lines an ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This Criminal Petition/Execution Application has been filed by the complainants/Decree Holders, under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act only) for enforcement of the order dated 29.07.1999, passed by this Commission, in the Consumer Complaint, bearing No.55 of 1998, tilted as œThe Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another Vs. M/s Gulab Road Lines and another, or in the alternative for punishing the Judgment Debtors/Opposite Parties, in accordance with law, as they failed to comply with the same (order dated 29.07.1999). 2. The facts, in brief, of the Consumer Complaint bearing No.55 of 1998, are that, on 31.10.1996, complainant no.2, sent one consignment containing packages of PW yarns etc. worth Rs.9,79,800/-, in truck No.MCY 5266, which belonged to Opposite Party No.1,-M/s Gulab Road Lines. The said consignment was to be delivered to M/s Neeta Textiles, Kurala Road, Andheri, Mumbai-59. The...
Jasvir Singh Vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Pseb, Sub Division Bariwala
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
Gurdev Singh, President: 1. The appellant/complainant, Jasvir Singh, has preferred this appeal against the order dated 19.6.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib (in short, œDistrict Forum?), vide which the complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the issuance of directions mentioned in the prayer clause thereof was dismissed. 2. As per the averments made by the complainant, in his complaint, he applied for electric motor connection to the opposite party on 29.9.1997 and deposited Rs.270/-, vide receipt No.360. The seniority list of the electric connections to be installed in his village was released. He was entitled to the installation of the electric connection by paying Rs.9,000/- by way of demand notice. The same was not released and he filed Complaint No.179 of 2011 for directing the opposite party to install the electric connection for the tubewell. That complaint was accepted by the District For...
Deepak G. Tripathi and Another Vs. Haroon Ebrahim and Another
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. This consumer complaint filed on 23/08/13 is being disposed off by this order. 2. The admitted facts are as follows: "(a) The OP No. 1 is a builder/developer who has constructed a project known as Magnum Sea View in plot No. 84 in survey No. 257/1 of Village Taleigao. The OP No. 1/builder by agreement dated 13/3/06 agreed to construct and sell to Arthur and Maria Viegas, under a registered agreement, a Penthouse having an area of 220 sq.mtrs. situated on the 4th floor of the said building alongwith two parking slots. (b) The OP No. 1 completed the construction of the said building on or about 6/3/06 and handed over the possession of the said Penthouse alongwith the said two parking slots to the said Arthur and Maria Viegas on or about 13/03/06. The said Penthouse was registered in the Village Panchayat of Taleigao under house No. 746/8. (c) The said Arthur and Maria Viegas occupied the said Penthouse and paid house tax, electricity charges, etc. regularly and...
M/S.Msh Sarees Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Icici Bank Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
R.C. Chavan, President: This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Forum whereby the forum rejected the consumer complaint no.476/2011 filed by the appellant against the respondent bank. The complainant is a Private Limited company which carried on business as a Trader, Supplier and exporter of designer sarees and dress materials. The complainant has shops all over Mumbai and in India. The complainant was having a corporate banking account no.054405002215 with the respondent bank. A cheque with a forged signature bearing no.36039 dated 20/10/2009 drawn in favour of M/s.Gourav Trading Company was honoured by the respondent bank. This cheque was for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. After the complainant company informed the bank officers that such a cheque was not issued, it was found that a sum of Rs.9,90,000/- had already been withdrawn from the account of the payee. However, disbursement of further sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was prevented. A police compla...
Ram Pal Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President: 1. On 26.12.2006 a Tata India car belonging to the complainant, which was insured for an amount of Rs.3,06,927/- with the OP Insurance Company w.e.f. 9.11.2006 to 8.11.2007, was stolen from the residence of the complainant at D-340, Nawada Housing Complex, Kakrolla More, Delhi. The complainant informed the police. A copy of the Daily Diary Annexure A-2 is available on the file. The Police Station Uttam Nagar, Delhi did not register the FIR. The complainant then filed an application u/s 156(3) CRPC and the Magistrate directed the police to register a case and the Police vide FIR No.404 of 2007 registered the case of theft. 2. After around 5 months of the theft the complainant informed the OP Insurance Co. by sending a letter about the theft, claiming the reimbursement of the insured sum. On 25.4.2007, the OP Insurance Co., by sending a letter, asked the complainant to explain reasons for the delay caused in informing the OP, and thereafter, on 2...
Manager, Espee Automobile Vs. Mohd. Aslam and Another
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.06.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 308 of 2009, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the opposite parties to repair the complainants motorcycle and to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- against the damages within a months from the date of the order. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Mohd. Aslam had purchased a Bajaj Discover, 125cc motorcycle on 23.06.2006 from M/s Espee Bajaj, Espee Automobile“opposite party No. 1 for sum of Rs. 47,822/. The complainant also paid a sum of Rs. 3,291/- for registration and insurance of the said motorcycle. According to the complainant, on 24.06.2006, the nut of the œjhula? of the motorcycle came out from it, which caused disbalance and the complainant sustained injuries. When the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1, the opposite pa...
Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs. Jaskaran Estates and Builders
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 20.11.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant) and directed the Opposite Party as under:- œ22. Taking a reasonable view, we allow this Complaint, by burdening the Opposite Party with a consolidated cost of Rs.1.00 lac to be paid to the Complainant to carry out the defects pointed out by the Local Commissioner. 23. The above said order shall be complied, within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party, failing which it shall be liable to pay the awarded amount along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of this order, till it is paid. No costs.? 2. In brief, the facts of the case, are that the complainant, being the owner of Plot No.614, Sector 36-B, Chandigarh, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (Annexure C-1) dated 14.05.2008, wit...
M/S New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Haribhau Laxmanrao Shinde
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-06-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Challenge in both these appeals are the judgments and orders dated 31.10.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Latur partly allowing C.C.No.132/2008 and 133/2008 directing appellant/opponent insurance company to pay to the complainant amount of insurance Rs.1 lakh and Rs.50,000/- respectively with interest @ 9% p.a. within 30 days from the date of receipt of the judgments and orders and further compensation of Rs.3000/- and Rs.2000/- more towards cost of proceedings in each complaints. (For the sake of brevity appellant is herein after referred as "opponent insurance company" and respondent as "the complainant") 2. As both the complaints are filed by the same complainant against the same opponent insurance company claiming amount of insurance of two policies, we have decided to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment. 3. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that:- Complainant Shri.Haribhau Shinde is running busines...
- ‹ Prev
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- Next ›
- Last »