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.
Cesc Ltd. and Another Vs. Sheoji Shukla
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
J.Bag, Ld. Member. The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 16.04.2013 of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit 1, Kolkata in CDF/Unit-1/Case No. 364 /2011, whereby Ld. Forum below allowed the complaint on contest without cost against the Ops The complaint case, in brief , was as follows : The Complainant is a consumer ( No. 14059046034) under the OP electricity company , i.e., CESC Ltd. Though his average electricity consumption bills were between Rs. 400/- and Rs. 500/- per month earlier, he received a bill of Rs. 1810/- for September 2011 which was excessive . He went to the OPs office and requested for inspection of the electric meter. OPs(1-2) , instead of entertaining the request of the Complainant , directed him to pay the bill, in default whereof, the electric line was threatened to be disconnected . The complainant was further aggrieved by the fact that a new meter was illegally installed in his premises for OP-3, who is an employee of CESC Ltd...
Manager Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nagnath Govindrao ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. Both these appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 17/03/2008 passed by the Dist. Consumer Forum, Latur in CC. No. 29/2007 whereby complaint of the complainant is partly allowed holding the appellants as liable for deficiency in service. The respondent herein is the original complainant. For better understanding the appellant in appeal No. 648/2008 which is a finance company hereinafter referred as œOpponent finance company?, whereas the appellant in appeal No. 836/2008 which is, Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd is hereinafter referred as the œOpponent Insurance Company?. The respondent No. 1 in both these appeals is the original complainant hereinafter referred as the œComplainant?. 2. Since the issue involved in both these appeals is same we have decided to dispose of both these appeals by way of common judgment and order. 3. It is the case of the complainant that he has purchased truck bearing No. KA-39-4962 by obt...
Jyotirmoy Ghosh and Others Vs. Bratati Biswas and Others
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President. This order relates to hearing on petition for condonation of delay of 86 days in filing this appeal. It has been stated in the petition for condonation of delay that the delay occurred due to the fact that the family members of the Appellants fell ill and that the Ld. Advocate was busy with his pre-occupied schedule being out of station. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 opposed the petition for condonation of delay by filing a written objection. Reference has been made to the decisions reported in RP No. 2051 of 2013 (NC) [DLF Home Developers Ltd. Vs. Shri Pradeep Kumar and Anr.]; RP No.2547 of 2013 (NC) [Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shri Pawan Kumar and Anr.]; RP No.1848 of 2012 (NC) [Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd. Vs. Vasantkumar H. Khandelwal and Anr.]; RP No.2371 of 2013 (NC) [Maa Jhande Wali Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Dr. Partha Pratim Saha and Anr.]; RP No.3903 of 2010 (NC) [Mahipal Singh Vs. S.D.O. OP City S/Divn. UNBVNL, ...
Nakka Sujatha Vs. Dr. V. Rama Devi
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
Oral Order: (S. Bhujanga Rao, Member) This appeal is directed against the order dt.14.02.2012 of the District Forum, Karimnagar in I.A.No.112/2011 in C.C.No.174/2010. The opposite party in C.C.No.174/2010 filed I.A.No.112/2011 praying to dismiss the complaint as barred by limitation. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint. The brief case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is as follows: On 22.07.2007 the complainant was admitted in Dr.Bhoom Reddys Hospital, Karimnagar for delivery and she delivered a female child. The complainant developed postpartum haemorrhage and was treated by the opposite party conservatively. The opposite party without valid consent of the complainant, performed abdominal hysterectomy and sutured at about 10.00 p.m. on 22.7.2007. Even after performing abdominal hysterectomy for the complainant, as the bleeding from sutured site did not stop, the opp.party referred the complainant to Yashoda Hospital Secunder...
Shivanand Shanbhag Vs. Ramesh G. Kolhi
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: (1) Complainant purchased a residential flat by way of executing registered agreement for sale on 07/11/2005 and subsequent Confirmation-cum-Deed to incorporate additional terms registered on 31/01/2006 with opponent, Shri Ramesh Kolhi of M/s.Star Developers (hereinafter referred to as opponent builder/developer). Agreed consideration for the flat was Rs.13,75,000/-. The complainant paid in all an amount of Rs.11,12,975/- to the opponent builder/developer. Possession of the flat was to be handed over to the complainant on or before June 2006. However, though more than 90% of amount was paid as against the agreed consideration, the opponent builder/developer has failed to deliver peaceful possession of the flat. The complainant has filed this consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service against the opponent builder/developer praying for possession of the flat with the agreed amenities or alternatively prayed for directions to the opponent builder/devel...
Dr. Rangarajan Memorial Hospital, Sundaram Medical Foundation Vs. Kala ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
J. Jayaram, Judicial Member This appeal is filed by the 1st opposite party against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai [North] in C.C.243/2005, dated 12-10-2010, allowing the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant is that one Ramesh, son of the 1st complainant, and husband of the 2nd complainant and father of the 3rd complainant “ met with road accident on 13-01-2005 and sustained injuries; and he was taken to the 1st opposite party hospital for treatment and in spite of the treatment given to him in the 1st opposite party hospital, he died on 14-1-2005 at about 3-15 pm due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint praying for direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.15 Lac as compensation and to pay costs. 3. According to the opposite parties, the deceased Ramesh was admitted in their hospital on 13-1-2005 at about 11-35 pm who had sustained injuries in a road accident and ...
U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Through Its Sampati Prabandh Adhikari a ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This revision petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the order dated 06.11.2008 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 27 of 2002, whereby the District Forum has condoned the delay in filing the consumer complaint. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that in the year 1989, the complainant applied for allotment of Type “ I house under the self-financing scheme floated by U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter referred to as œParishad?) and deposited sum of Rs.25,000/- towards registration fee. The estimated cost of the house was Rs.2,68,000/-. The Parishad vide their registered letter dated 27.02.1992, informed the complainant that the price of the house has been enhanced to Rs.3,21,000/- and 15 days time was given to the complainant to accept the proposal. The complainant accepted the proposal of the Parishad. On...
Partha Sarathy Bhattacharjee Vs. Aurobindo Seva Kendra and Others
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President. It is a complaint case filed by the Complainant praying for compensation to the tune of Rs.54 lakh on the ground of medical negligence and deficiency in service. The factual matrix of the case may be summarized as follows. On 25/02/08 Chitralekha Bhattacharjee, since deceased, was of 68 years of age and got herself admitted in OP No.1 having suffered fracture in her right hip after falling down. She was under the treatment of OP No.3 Dr. R. Hom Choudhuri. She was diagnosed comminuted subtrochanteric (right) fracture and was advised surgery. For such surgery no informed consent was obtained by the OP No.3 from the Complainant. She was not explained the advantage and disadvantage of surgery. The Complainant was successfully operated on February 29, 2008 when the internal fixation with pin plate was done for subtrochanteric fracture, neck of femur right, under spinal anesthesia with C-arm control and cardiac monitoring. The operation was conducted by OP No.3....
N. Ravindranath Vs. the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
J. Jayaram, Judicial Member This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai [South] in C.C.539/2006, dated 9-3-2011, dismissing the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant was allotted a flat by the 1st opposite party and he paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- as Earnest Money and the tentative value was fixed at Rs.1,57,000/- and as instructed by the 1st opposite party he paid the total amount of Rs.3,06,708/- including the last payment of Rs.69,876/- on 30-1-2003 and the sale deed was executed on 4-10-2004 and he has paid a sum of Rs.1,49,078/- in excess, over and above the total cost. In spite of repeated demands, the excess amount collected from him has not been refunded by the opposite parties which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint for direction to the opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs.1,49,078/- being the excess amount collected from ...
Tripura State Elec Tricity Corporation Limited and Another Vs. Subodh ...
Court: Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Agartala
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
S. Baidya, J. 1. This appeal filed under section 15 of the C.P.Act, 1986 by the appellants on 01.07.13 is directed against the judgment dated 26.03.13 passed by the District Forum,West Tripura, Agartala in case No.C.C-85/10 whereby the Learned Forum directed the Managing Director of O.P. No-1 to restore the electricity in the house of the complainant without insisting for reconnection charge within a period of two days with a further direction to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for deficiency of service and for keeping the complainant without electricity since from 30.11.10 and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- towards the cost of litigation. It has been further directed that the O.Ps will pay the said amount within a period of 30 days from the date of judgment, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. after the expiry of 30 days till the payment is made. 2. It has been alleged in the memo of appeal that the case of the complainant/respondent ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »