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.
Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Ajay Ti ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
1. This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the OPs/appellants against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum?) on 9.11.2012 in Complaint Case No. 34/2012, whereby the complaint of the complainant/respondent, has been allowed in part and District Forum has cancelled the electricity bill issued for the month of January, 2012 being erroneous. The OPs/appellants have been directed : (i) to provide revised electricity bill for electricity connection service No. 52-86-71-02-000732 on the basis of average meter reading prior to two years from February, 2012 within a month, (ii) to pay compensation of Rs. 2,000 for physical and mental agony, (iii) to pay Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation to the complainant/respondent. The complainant/respondent, has been directed to pay the revised electric bill within 15 days of providing electric bill by the appellants and the ap...
Chaitanya Godawari Grameena Bank Nalanda Engineering College Branch Si ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Incharge President) 1. The first opposite party is the appellant. The first respondent filed complaint claiming a sum of `64,000/- towards compensation and `30,000/- towards damages as also an amount of Rs.130/- towards court fee. 2. The first respondent worked as professor and vice principal of the second respondent-college. The second respondent-college has account with the appellant-bank and as per the instructions of the second respondent-college, the appellant used to remit the salaries of its employees from the account of the second respondent-college to the respective accounts of its employees. 3. The appellant-bank remitted an amount of Rs.64,000/- on 17.03.2012 as per the instructions of the second respondent-college, an amount of Rs.64,000/- into the account bearing number 706510025000122 of the first respondent. The appellant-bank on 19.03.2012 reverted the entry as to the amount to the account of the second respondent-college. The first...
M/S. Bhagwandas Vyapar Udyog Limited the New India Assurance Company L ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
Debasis Bhattacharya, Member: This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.08.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Unit-II, Kolkata in Case No. 101/2010. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum has dismissed the case on contest but without any cost. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the Complainant thereof has preferred this appeal. The case of the Complainant is that it was the registered owner of a Taxi bearing no. WB-04C-0909 and it was covered under insurance of the OP Insurance Company up to 2004 of a sum assured of Rs.3,20,000/-. On 12.02.2004, the said Taxi was in the custody of one Sanjoy Kumar Chowdhury, which was plied by one Driver, namely, Gopal Yadav. But, on 12.02.2004, the said Taxi was not handed over till midnight by the said Driver and the said Driver could not be traced out. Accordingly, one missing diary was lodged on 13.02.2004 at Bhowanipore P.S. Subsequently, the said Driver returned back without the Taxi, but could not give the exact...
Archana Bhobe and Another Vs. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. ...
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Jan-03-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. This consumer complaint filed on 25/09/13 is being disposed off by this order. 2. To cut a long story short, it may be stated that complainant No. 1 had purchased a sports utility vehicle, namely BMW X5 on 19/04/10 for a sum of Rs.60,75,000/- and registered the same under No. GA-07-E-0590. The said vehicle was purchased by complainant No. 1 from OP No. 3, the dealer of OP No. 2, the manufacturer of the said vehicle, and it was insured with OP No. 1 under a policy known as œprivate car package policy with additional benefit of zero depreciation-silver plan?. It did not provide for damage to internal child parts of the engine arising out of water ingression which is provided under platinum plan. Lastly, complainant No. 2 had renewed the policy effective from 16/04/13 to 15/04/14 by declaring its IDV at Rs.42,07,768 and by paying a premium of Rs.97,666/-. As per the complainants, they had obtained the said policy because it covered a wide range of accident...
Dipak Ranjan Mukherjee Vs. Deputy Service Manager and Another
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I in case no.422 of 2010 allowing the complaint and directing the OPs jointly and severally to replace the machine in question without taking any transportation charges with the new machine of same description. The complainant was directed to pay 25% of that product to the OPs. The OPs were further directed, jointly and severally, to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of communication of the order, in default the amount will carry interest @ 9% till realisation. 2. The case of the Complainant/Appellant, in short, is that he purchased one front loading washing machine having brand name Whirlpool AVM 501 (5 kg) Professional on 13/09/08 at the price of Rs.14,500/- from M/s Great Eastern Trading Company who was the dealer of the respondent company. The machine had a warranty o...
The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Praja Parishad Vs. Molaka Venkataram ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Incharge President) 1. The opposite party no.1 is the appellant. The respondent no.1 is a retired teacher who worked at various places and contributed the amount to General Provident Fund to a tune of Rs.1,54,770/- which was maintained by the appellant till his retirement i.e. on 31.05.2010. The closing balance amount in his account was shown as Rs.1,54,770/- and it was mentioned in the online account. The respondent no.1 is entitled to an interest at 8% p.a. on closing balance amount of Rs.1,54,770/-. After the retirement of the respondent no.1, he has submitted requisition to the appellant to pay closing balance and the latter failed to do so. Later the respondent no.1 personally approached the appellant and the appellant postponing for payment on the ground that there are no funds available with them. 2. The respondent no.1 obtained a statement of account which shows an amount of Rs.1,64,952/- is available in his account as on 14.06.2011. The ap...
Ajay Sood Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Petrol Pump and Others
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.11.2013, 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. In brief, the facts of the case, are that the complainant had been utilizing the services of Opposite Party No.1 for the last many years and as per normal practice, he went to it (Opposite Party No.1) on 6.5.2011 for getting petrol filled, in Activa Scooter, bearing Registration no.CH01-AF-2986, registered in the name of his wife Babita Sood, and got filled petrol worth Rs.200/- against receipt No.1493 dated 6.5.2011. It was stated that after getting petrol filled, the complainant wanted to get the air pressure checked, in the scooter tyres, but the air pump on the one side was out of order, and, on the other side, the attendant refused to check the pressure, on the plea, that it was meant for fou...
Mrs. Manisha Balakrishna Kulkarni and Another Vs. M/S. Lanco Hills Tec ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
Oral Order: (R. L. Narasimha Rao, Member) 1) This is a complaint filed u/s 17(1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act for a direction to the opposite party to hand over physical possession of the property to the complainant by handing over the keys of the schedule premises, to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and to pay damages of Rs. 5,000/- per day from 12.2.2013 till the date of handing over the physical possession of the flat and also for costs. 2) The case of the complainant in brief is that attracted by the advertisement issued by the opposite party the complainant purchased flat bearing No. 3402 in 33rd floor comprised in tower-17LH built on the land with four car parking space measuring 134.55 sq.mtrs fully described in the schedule-II of the sale deed. The complainant submits that as per the agreement they have paid 85% of the amount by May, 2011 on condition that they would complete the construction by June, 2011 and remaining 15% sale consideration shall be paid on complet...
Amar Nath Sharma Vs. Tulsi Purkait
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President: 1. This appeal u/s 27A of the C. P. Act is directed against the order no.37 dated 30/07/13 passed by the Learned District Forum, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in EA No.55/2010 recording that the Execution Case was disposed of on full satisfaction. The Complaint Case No.25 of 2009 was allowed on contest directing the OP to handover the printed copies of books to the Complainant within 30 days from date. The OPs were also directed to pay compensation of Rs.500/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, in default the OP shall pay penalty of Rs.25/- per day from the date of default till the compliance of the order. The Learned District Forum in the impugned order in connection with EA 55 of 2010 recorded that the litigation cost and compensation were paid. It was further recorded that vide order no.36 the Dhr was at liberty to take the copies of books and if not received the Jdr shall take back the same and ke...
A. Subba Lakshmi Vs. the Director Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital Som ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-02-2014
Oral Order: (R.L. Narasimha Rao, Member) 1) This is an application filed u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection for non-compliance of order of the Commission dt. 16.3.2006. 2) The order of this Commission in CC 41/2001 dt. 16.3.2006 reads as follows: œIn the result the complaint is allowed in part directing Opposite Party No. 1 hospital to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing of complaint i.e., 14.3.2001 till the date of realization to the complainant together with costs of Rs. 5,000/-.? 3) Aggrieved by the order, the Op1 hospital preferred FA No. 270/2006 before the National Commission. The National Commission while granting stay on 11.7.2006 directed œthe appellant shall deposit the entire amount with the State Commission. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 1 lakh will be released on filing personal bond to the complainant within a period of four weeks.? In compliance of order the respondent/hospital has deposited a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs before t...
- ‹ Prev
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 42
- 43
- Next ›
- Last »