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.
B. Kasi Reddy Vs. Dr. T. Viswarupachari
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-29-2014
T. Ashok Kumar, Member This is an appeal preferred by the complainant against the order in C.C.No.17/2012 dated 08-4-2013 on the file of District Forum, Kurnool. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder: The gist of the complaint is that the complainantis that he met with an accident on 09-08-20009 and sustained injury to his right leg elbow and to his right knee. He took treatment for five days at Government Hospital, Nandyal but could not recover and joined in opposite party nursing home as inpatient on 14-08-2009 and was treated upto 18-8-2009 and he paid Rs.12,000/-. It is the case of the complainant that instead of getting cured, he developed further complications and the opposite party was very negligent in treating the complainant and due to his negligence the wound formed gangrene and his blood urea increased abnormally to 72-80 points and it became serious and puss was formed around. Inspite of several requests, opposite party doct...
M/S. Kulswamini Developers and Others Vs. Mahendrasingh Dalpatsingh Pa ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
R.C. Chavan, President: [1] This appeal is directed against an order 30/04/2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane partly allowing Consumer Complaint No.545 of 2009 and directing the Appellants herein/original Opponents to hand-over to the Respondent herein/original Complainant possession of flats bearing Nos.302 and 303 from B Wing in the scheme known as Siddhi-Vinayak Park, being constructed by the Appellants, and to pay to the Respondent/original Complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation towards mental agony and harassment besides costs of Rs.2,000/-. [2]We have heard Adv. Manoj Patil on behalf of the Appellants. Respondent chose to remain absent and did not advance oral submissions. We have also perused the record. [3]Learned Counsel for the Appellants placed on record for our perusal an order dated 13/12/2011 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petitions bearing Nos.2565 of 2011 and 2566 of 2011, ...
K. Tippu Sulthan Vs. the Manager, Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insur ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
J. Jayaram, Judicial Member This appeal is filed by the opposite parties against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai [South] in C.C.975/2009, dated 27-06-2011, dismissing the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had taken a policy from the 1st opposite party on 28-6-2009 and all the required particulars were separately noted by the 1st opposite partys official and they obtained his signature on an unfilled application telling that they would furnish all the details in the form and the officials collected Rs.6,800/- towards two months premium. The policy dated 30-6-2009 was received on 5-7-2009 through courier, but the same had been delivered at his neighbors house. On perusal of the contents of the policy, he found that there were 5 discrepancies in the policy and he contacted the opposite parties for rectifying the defects, but the opposite parties did not oblige. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties...
The Registrar, Alliance University, Chikkahagde, Chadapura Vs. Japa Na ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
T. Ashok Kumar, Member This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party against the order in C.C.No.02/2012 dated 28-12-2012 on the file of District Forum, Karimnagar. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder: The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainant joined the business school of the opposite party for the course of MBA on 08-7-2011 and paid Rs.50,000/- towards registration on 17-3-2011, 1st instalment of tuition fee of Rs.3,50,000/- on 09-4-2011, hostel deposit fee of Rs.15,000/- on 09-4-20-11 and Rs.57,000/- towards hostel fee. He was granted an educational loan from State Bank of Hyderabad, Karimnagar and it also released first instalment and thus he paid Rs.4,72,000/- and joined the hostel on 09-7-2011 and attended the classes from the said date. Due to poor food, he suffered ill health and was not in a position to continue the course and he approached the opposite party and expressed his desire to cancel the admi...
Jameel Khan and Others Vs. the Chief Engineer, M.S.E.B. and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member:1. This appeal is preferred against the order dtd.30.11.2005 passed in Consumer Complaint No. CC/04/163 by Addl. District Consumer Forum, Nagpur by which the complaint has been partly allowed.2. The case of the complainants as set out in the complaint in brief is that they purchased agricultural lands bearing survey No.29/2 and 29/4 from Daulatrao Raghoji Narole on 01.02.2001 under a common sale-deed. There is a well in the said land and electric motor pump of 5 Hp is installed on the said well. The electric connection was given by the opposite parties (for short œthe O.Ps?) in the name of Daulatrao Raghoji Narole for irrigation of the said lands. The complainants after purchasing the said lands, planted 400 trees of orange, 100 trees of sweet lime and 50 trees of lemon in that land of survey No.29/2 and 150 trees of sweet lime in the land of survey No.29/4 in the year 2001. They irrigated the said trees with the help of said electric motor pump for ...
Ramnath D. Mungse and Another Vs. M/S. Yogam Enterprises and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
R.C. Chavan, President: [1] We have heard Adv. Anand V. Patwardhan on behalf of the Revision Petitioners. We have also perused the record. [2] This revision petition is directed against an order dated 25/07/2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane in Consumer Complaint No.402 of 2007, holding that the applications filed by the Revision Petitioners herein/original Complainants for initiating an action as contemplated under Section-13(5) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall be decided when the complaint is finally disposed of. Revision Petitioners/original Complainants had a grievance about the affidavits filed by Mr. Ramesh Babu Solkar and others. Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners submits that the question as to whether the affidavits are false or not and whether an action is required to be taken against those deponents can be independently dealt with irrespective of merits of the complaint and he submits that the deponents had tried to pl...
Govt. Kirti College, Nail (Patran), Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, T ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
(Order) Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The appellant/OP No.1 (hereinafter called œOP No. 1?) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 8.2.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.471 dated 14.11.2006 vide which the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was allowed to respondent No.1/complainant. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainant(hereinafter called œthe complainant?) against the opposite parties on the allegations that he had taken the admission with Op No. 1 in B.A. Part III for the session 2005-2006 and paid Rs. 1350/- vide receipt No. 66 and was allotted Roll No. 881. The complainant attended the classes and more than 75% lectures and was eligible to appear in the examination and a fee of Rs. 1080/- vide receipt No. 72 was deposited. When the complainant approached OP No. 1 for taking roll number for the final examination, he w...
R. Rajesh Vs. E.V. Vishal
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC.257/11 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram challenging the order of the Forum dated, July 31, 2012 directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- towards cost for the defective photographs taken by the opposite party regarding the marriage function of the complainant. 2. The case of the respondent/complainant as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:- Complainant had entrusted the work of videography and photography of his marriage function with M/s Friends Digital run by the opposite party. Opposite party took the video and photographs as agreed and collected Rs.7000/- from the complainant towards the advance. Complainant later selected the required photographs to be printed and Rs.5000/- was paid on the next day. After one month the album and photographs were handed over to the complainant. On a perusal of ...
Dr. (Mrs.) A. Indumathi Vs. Kovai Medical Centre and Hospital Ltd, Rep ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
J. Jayaram, Judicial Member The complaint is filed under Sec. 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1. The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is a qualified Ophthalmologist. The 1st opposite party is a public limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act; and the 2nd opposite party is a Consultant Endocrinologist; and the 3rd opposite party is a Consultant Laparoscopic Surgeon under the 1st opposite party. 2. Sometime during May 2006, she felt some changes in her body, such as rapid increase in weight, Pigmentation and acne in the face, puffiness of face, fatigue, hypertension, joint pain, etc. she herself being a doctor, did few normal tests to rule out any endocrine disorder. The tests revealed that her Serum Cortisol level was high. Hence, she went to the 1st opposite party hospital where the 2nd opposite party is Consultant Endocrinologist and the 3rd opposite party is Consultant, Laparoscopic Surgeon. She was subjected to several te...
The National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Panu Rabi Das and Anoth ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-2014
J. Bag, Member: The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.11.2012 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas, in C.C.Case No. 327/2011, whereby Ld. Forum below allowed the complaint against OP Nos. 1 - 3 with cost, compensation and penalty and dismissed the same against the Proforma OP No. 4 without any cost. The Complaint case, in brief, was as follows: The petitioner is the wife of late Gaya Rabi Das, who had obtained a Group Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy (No. 100300/47/2K/9601062/2K/96/00260 dated 01.02.2001) from the OP insurance company. The insured, Gaya Rabi Das, was run over by the train No. DN 25/8 Express near eastern cabin of the railway gate at Pakur in Jharkhand on 8.3.2009. The Complainant being the nominee and beneficiary of the insured submitted insurance claim to OP No. 1 along with all relevant documents including copies of the Death Certificate, Post Mortem Report, Hospital documents, but no...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »