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.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Through Divisional Manager Vs. Nihal ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 06.09.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by respondent-Nihal Singh against the present appellant, has been allowed and a direction given to the appellant to settle the claim of the respondent-complainant within one month positively and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses. 2. Respondent owned a light transport vehicle, which was insured with the appellant for the period from 21.06.2011 to 20.06.2012. Vehicle met with an accident on 16.10.2011 and was completely damaged. Report was lodged with the police on the very day of the occurrence of the accident. Intimation of the accident was given to the appellant also and formal claim was lodged thereafter. A surveyor deputed by the appellant assessed the loss at Rs.1.89 lacs and categorize...
V.i. Titus Vs. Apple a Day Properties Pvt. Ltd., Apple Tower, Palariva ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is a complaint filed under section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the complainant claiming refund of the amount paid by him to the opposite party with interest and compensation. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:- The opposite party is M/s Apple A Day Properties Private Limited represented by its Managing Director. Complainant had booked an apartment No.G.102 (Phase 3 Nano Homes) in New Cochin Project of the opposite party who is a builder. Complainant has also entered into an agreement with the opposite party. Complainant had paid Rs.5,50,000/-. Opposite party assured that flat will be delivered in May 2012. But the opposite party failed to deliver the flat. Opposite party did not sent any reply to the notice sent by the complainant. Therefore complainant filed this complaint seeking a direction directing the opposite party to complete the construction of the apartment and hand over the same to the c...
Emaar Mgf Land Limited, Through Its Managing Director Vs. Jaganath Nag ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.09.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainants (now respondents) and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant) as under:- œWe accordingly, allow the present complaint and direct the Opposite Party to:- i. Refund Rs.5,00,000/- received from the Complainants at the time of booking, along with interest @9% per annum from the date of receipt, till the date of payment. ii. The Opposite Party shall pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainants on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment; iii. The Opposite Party shall also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant. This order be complied with by Opposite Party within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy, fai...
President/Head of Central Operations Undertaking Reliance Life Insuran ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Incharge President) 1. The opposite parties are appellants. The first respondent filed complaint seeking for direction to the appellants to pay the sum assured under life insurance policy bearing number 16364089 with interest thereon and costs. 2. The first respondent obtained life insurance policy for premium term of 30 years under contract number 16364089 appointing the second respondent as her nominee. The appellants on receipt of premium amount of Rs.3,280/- issued insurance policy in favour of the first respondent on 17.02.2010. The first respondent died on 12.04.2010. The second respondent submitted claim which was repudiated on the ground that the first respondent suffered from Ewings sarcoma, a rare disease in which cancer cells are found in bone or soft tissue and non-disclosure of cancer was material to issuance of the insurance policy.The appellants were proceeded exparte. 3. The second respondent filed his affidavit and the affidavit of...
Managing Director, National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another Vs. Dr. ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
Jagannath Bag, Ld. Member: The present appeal is directed against the impugned Order No. 30, dated, 14.11.12 in CDF / Unit-I/ Case No. 99/ 2012 of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-I , Kolkata, whereby Ld. Forum below allowed the complaint on contest against the OPs with cost. The complaint case , in brief, was as follows: The complainant Dr. J.R. Banik , a senior citizen, obtained one Mediclaim Policy from the OP , i.e, National Insurance Company Ltd. in the year 2007. During the validity of the policy, the Complainant became sick with brain haemorrhage and was treated in the R.N. Tagore International Centre for Cardio Vascular Science and remained hospitalized for the period from 31.05.2008 to 05.06.2008 and was, thereafter, discharged from hospital on payment of Rs. 87,773/- . The claim for reimbursement from the OP insurance company was lodged on 09.06.2008. The OP Insurance Company proposed to pay Rs. 64,360/- with deduction of Rs. 23,373/- which action of...
Alina Horta Vs. Sandeep Poinguincar and Another
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. This FA was dismissed by order of this Commission dated 20/03/07 and now has been remanded by the Honble National Commission by order dated 27/08/13 in RP No. 3035/2008. 2. Accordingly, the FA was taken up on 9/10/13 and on that day the Appellant/Complainant did not appear but Lr. Adv. Shri. Manerkar appeared on behalf of the complainant and sought time to file wakalatnama. On the next i.e. 11/11/13 Adv. Shri. A. Monteiro appeared on behalf of the complainant and stated that he had instructions to appear on behalf of the complainant. The Respondent was represented by Adv. Shri. S. Pai Raiturkar on 9/10/13 as well as on 11/11/13 who brought to the notice of this Commission that the hearing of the appeal was subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/- which were not paid. Reluctantly, the FA was adjourned to 28/11/13. Earlier, on 9/10/13 as well as 11/11/13 it was made clear to both the parties that in case they wish to arrive at a amicable settlement they were fre...
Rajendra Prasad Naidu Managing Director Venkata Padmavathi College of ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Incharge President The opposite parties are the appellants. The complaint is filed seeking for a direction to the appellants to issue hall ticket to the respondent and direct the appellants to allow the respondent appear for the first year examination, to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/. The case of the respondent is that he joined the course of Master of Physiotherapy in the appellants college under Management quota and at the time of admission, he was informed that the course fee will be Rs.75,000/-. The respondent submitted that he informed that he will pay Rs.10,000/- in the first instance and the remaining Rs.65,000/- in three instalments. The respondent submitted that on account of demand, the appellants started demanding Rs.1 lakh for allotment of seats under management quota and the respondent was asked to pay excess of Rs.5,000/- and he paid the same by 03-7-2010. The respondent submitted that he was ...
Satish Goel Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.11.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant obtained a Personal Accident Insurance Policy, from the Opposite Party, valid for the period from 18.03.2011 to midnight of 17.03.2012, for the capital sum risk, to the tune of Rs.5 lacs, on payment of premium, to the tune of Rs.993/-. During the currency of the said Insurance Policy, the complainant met with an accident, on 19.03.2011, while walking, whereafter he was taken to Apollo Clinic, Chandigarh. The Doctors of the said Hospital, advised the complainant, complete bed rest. Thereafter, the complainant filed a claim, with the Opposite Party, alongwith all the requisite documents, vide Annexure C-3, followed by reminders dated 28....
The Icici Lombard Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Its General Manager ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Incharge President The appellant-insurance company was proceeded exparte before the District Forum and has filed the appeal contending that the cause of death of the insured was not covered by the terms of the policy and thereby it has supported the repudiation of the claim. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the respondents has agreed to the proposal that the matter be remitted back to the District Forum giving opportunity to the appellant-insurance company for the District Forum to pass orders on contest of the case by both the parties. As the contention of the appellant- insurance company is in regard to coverage of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as to the claim lodged by the respondents, the ends of justice would be met if both parties are given liberty to adduce evidence in support of their rival contentions. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the matter can be remanded to the District Forum for disposal afresh on merits, in acco...
Regent Hirise Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Ashish Kumar Ghora
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
Mrs. Mridula Roy, Ld. Member: The instant Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt. 24.12.2012 passed by Ld. DCDRF, Unit-I, Kolkata, in Case No. 463 of 2009 allowing the same on contest with cost directing the Ops to pay a sum of `50,000/- for the damage of the car of the complainant and to pay a sum of ` 30,000/- towards compensation for harassment and mental agony and to pay `10,000/- towards litigation cost within 45 days from the date of communication of the order, i.d. an interest @ 9% per annum would accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the Ops have preferred the instant Appeal. The case of the complainant before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that he purchased a flat at 3rd floor of a building situated at Premises No. 7, Canal Street, Kolkata-700014 along with a car parking space at the ground floor of the said building at a consideration of ` 23,03,2...
- ‹ Prev
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 41
- 42
- 43
- Next ›
- Last »