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.
Dodda Venkateswarlu Vs. the Deputy General Manager(Lpg) Indian Oil Cor ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
Oral Order: (Gopala Krishna Tamada, President) 1) The un-successful complainant in CC 105/2011 before the Dist. Forum,Khammamis the appellant herein, and he assailed the order of the Dist. Forum dt. 25.3.2013 whereby the Dist. Forum refused to award any compensation for the death of his wife and dismissed the complaint against the respondents. 2) The brief facts that led to filing of the present appeal are as under: The appellant and his wife Smt. Dodda Naveena hereinafter referred to as the deceased are husband and wife and the deceased was given an LPG connection under DEEPAM Scheme by the Government vide document No. APSO-2007-2008, No. 3343882 dt. 14.8.2008 with Consumer No. GPC 2231, Subscription Voucher No. 3343882. The said LPG cylinder was supplied by the respondents herein. When the appellant observed some leakage of gas from the said cylinder/regulator/rubber tube/stove the same was brought to the notice of the officials of the respondents and also the Tahasildhar of Aswapura...
A. Araichiya Pillai Vs. Sbi Cards and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. Repre ...
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 [North] in C.C.218/2007, dated 03-02-2010, dismissing the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had availed credit card facility with the 2nd opposite party and later he made request to the opposite parties to close his credit card account since he could not afford to maintain the card account and also requested some concession in the full and final settlement; but the opposite parties did not close his account and they adopted devious methods for collecting money from him and failed to issue no due certificate or letter acknowledging full and final settlement. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complaint praying for direction to the opposite parties to issue no due certificate and to pay a sum of Rs.1 Lac as compensation towards deficiency in service and a sum of Rs.50,000/- ...
Sajal Deb Vs. Amar Pal, Managing Director M/S. Kalitara Foods Pvt. Ltd ...
Court: Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Agartala
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
S. Baidya, J. 1. This appeal filed on 22.06.13 by the appellant/O.P. under section 15 of the C.P.Act is directed against the judgment dated 22.05.13 passed by the District Forum,West Tripura, Agartala in case No.C.C-34/09 whereby the Learned Forum directed the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.44,950/- towards the value of non-supplied bricks numbering 15500 with a further direction to the effect that the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of presentation of the petition before the Forum on 28.07.09 and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- towards the cost of litigation along with a direction to the O.P. to pay the said amount within a period of 30 days from the date of judgment, failing which the amount shall carry penal interest @ 10% p.a. after expiry of 30 days till the payment is made. 2. It has been stated in the memo of appeal that the respondent who is the complainant before the District Forum filed a complaint under section 12 of the C.P. Act before the District Forum, W...
Safila Beevi and Another Vs. A.M.Hospital, Rep. by Its Managing Direct ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC.245/10 on the file of CDRF, Kollam challenging the order of the Forum dated, February 07, 2013 in I.A.78(a)/11 dismissing the complaint as time barred. 2. Smt.Shakkela the mother of minor 2nd complainant died while undergoing caesarian operation in the first opposite party hospital on May 03, 2006. The complaint was filed on November 19, 2010. The Forum dismissed the complaint as time barred. 3. For several reasons we are of the view that the finding of the Forum cannot be sustained. Actual complainant is the 2nd complainant who is a minor at the time of filing of the complaint. Therefore he is under legal disability to file the complaint. Section 6(1) of Limitation Act, 1963 provides thus:- œWhere a person entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree is, at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, a minor or insane, or an idiot, he may institute th...
Gita Rani Dutta Vs. Sharda Kushal @ Sarda Kushal
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Howrah in CC 74 of 2010 against the complaint and directing the OP to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the Complainant within 30 days on receiving the balance amount of consideration of Rs.3 lakh. The OP was directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- within one month from the date of order failing which the amount will carry interest @ 12% p.a. The case of the complainant/respondent, in short, is that she entered into an agreement with the Appellant/OP for the purchase of a flat on 01/04/08 and she paid an amount of Rs.31,000/-. The OP granted a receipt on 17/02/08. The Complainant also paid an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- for which another receipt was issued on 30/03/08. The Complainant has also made other payments for which no receipt was granted and the sum of Rs.3 lakh was remaining as the balance amount. The OP did not...
United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Divisional Manager Vs. ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Jan-30-2014
K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by the original opponent which is insurance company ( hereinafter termed as œopponent insurance company?) against the impugned judgment and order dtd. 11/01/2008 passed by the Dist.Consumer Forum in CC.No.220/2007, whereby the complaint is partly allowed and the opponent insurance company is held liable for deficiency in service. The respondent is the original complainant (herein after termed as the œcomplainant?). 2. Brief facts alleging to the present appeal are as under :- That, the complainant had owned Mahindra Max Jeep No.M.H.38/738. He had obtained insurance policy from the opponent insurance company for covering the risk of the vehicle which was valid for the period from 06/12/2005 to 05/12/2006. It was submitted that on 24/04/2006 his driver Sonaji had taken the said jeep to the native place of his friend named Hamid Imamoddin at Chincholi (Bk) Tq.Latur and from there he had gone to Ter Tq. Osmanabad for performing p...
Pramod Kumar Vs. the Icici Bank Limited Rep. by Its Regional Manager
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2014
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. The averments of the complaint are that the appellant is the member of credit card bearing No.4477 4737 2623 1009 issued by the respondent with effect from 30.07.2008. The appellant paid a total amount of Rs.1,17,778 against the demanded amount of Rs.1,15,818/-. The appellant had paid excess amount of Rs.4,057/- to the respondent and in spite of collecting the excess amount the matter was reported to CIBIL. Due to reporting the matter to CIBIL by the respondent the appellants two proposals have been turned down by other bankers. The appellant informed the respondent by his letter dated 7.7.2009 that he is ready to settle the matter with respondent by paying the due amount if any with it. If the matter is not settled, the respondent is liable to pay Rs.3 lakhs towards compensation for causing defamation. The appellant got issued notice dated 20.08.2010 demanding the respondent to refund the e...
Mir Abdul Kalam Vs. Mahar Afroz and Another
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-2014
Debasis Bhattacharya, Member. This revision is directed against the order dated 06.03.2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Unit “ I, Kolkata in Case No. 414/2012. By the impugned order, Ld. District Forum has directed the OC, Ekbalpur P.S. to deploy adequate police force at the time of installation of new meter to the Complainant thereof. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this revision has been made by one Mir Abdul Kalam, who though is not a party to the complaint case but still an aggrieved person by the said impugned order, for which revision before this Commission has been admitted and registered. It is to be considered if there is any irregularity and illegality in the impugned order so as to reverse the same, or not. DECISION WITH REASONS : Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist has submitted that the Complainant has stated that she is a tenant in the case property. But, in fact, she is no one but the daughter of Sultana Afroz, and she has no stake in the prope...
Rakshit Special Vs. Anjan Kumar Chatterjee
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II allowing the complaint and directing the OP to refund Rs.27,327/- (Rs.24,327/- + Rs.3000/-) to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of communication of the order, in default the amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a. till realisation. The OP was further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment along with Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost. The case of the complainant/respondent, in short, is that the OP is the sole proprietor of the registered tour organization having its head office at Martin Burn House, Kolkata-700 001. The Complainant entered into an agreement with the OP on 15/09/10 for a package tour from Howrah to Satna (M.P.) as per schedule mentioned in the pamphlet. For that purpose the Petitioner paid Rs.6,000/- as advance on 11/08/10 out of total cost of Rs.24,327/-. Subsequently, the Complainant p...
Subash, Vipanchika Vs. M/S. G.G. Hospital, R/by Its Proprietor, Dr. G. ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-29-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC.353/12 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram challenging the order of the Forum dated, October 16, 2012 dismissing the complaint as time barred. 2. The complainant filed the complaint before the Forum alleging medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties regarding surgery conducted by the opposite parties 1 and 2 on the complainant in 1998 and claiming refund of the treatment expenses. It is further alleged in the complaint that he entrusted the matter with the 3rd opposite party Advocate to file the complaint which he did not do. 3. The Forum dismissed the complaint as time barred. The complainant has come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum. 4. Heard the counsel for the appellant/complainant and opposite parties. 5. The surgery was conducted on the complainant in the year 1998. The complaint has been filed in 2012 after a lapse of more than 13 years the said salary has not been pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »