Scdrc Court March 2014 Judgments
Ram Babu Aggarwal and Another Vs. Union Bank of India and Another
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
Urvashi Agnihotri, Member: 1. Delay of 15 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. This appeal has been preferred by Ram Babu Aggarwal and his son Vipin-complainants (appellants herein) against the order dated August 08th, 2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Hisar, whereby, the complaint filed by them was dismissed. 3. That on August 29th, 2006, the complainants took a loan of Rs.3,70,000/- from Union Bank of India, Hisar “ opposite parties (respondents herein) after mortgaging their land measuring 2 kanal 1 marla. It was agreed that there would be 60 monthly installments of Rs.7266/- per month (including principle and interest). The appellants regularly made the payment of the installments upto September, 2011. Thereafter, some installments were delayed due to some unavoidable circumstances but same were duly paid by the appellants in lump sum. The grievance of the complainants before the District Forum was that the respond...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. R.F. Motors (P) Ltd., Madakkathanam and Another Vs. Maniyamma
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC 144/2011 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act of 1986 challenging the order of the Forum dated April 28/2012. The case of the complainant as testified by her as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this: PW1 purchased a Tata Indica Vista Car from the first opposite party who is the agent of the second opposite party company. Even from the first day onwards the car showed defects. The tyres showed excessive wear and tear. It was got repaired with first opposite party. After running 10,000 kms again the same defect occurred, and the first opposite party changed back tyres to front. After covering 1000 kms the tyre got worn out. After 17000 kms the clutch and brake system also became defective and the glass channels were rusted. The first opposite party redelivered the vehicle stating that all the defects were cured. But after running 30000 kms...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Surender Singh and Another
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member: 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated October 15th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Yamuna Nagar, whereby complaint bearing No.333 of 2009 filed by Surender Singh, seeking direction to the appellant-opposite party to pay the benefits of insurance with respect to his truck, was accepted, in the following terms:- œ..we allow the complaint of complainant and direct the respondent company to pay a sum of Rs.2,55,516/- (Rs.3,16,116/- after reducing an amount of Rs.62,600/-) alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the complainant after three months from the date of accident till its realization and also to pay the interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.62,600/- after three months from the date of accident till the date when the payment was made to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.? 2. Surender Singh and Nanak Singh-co...
Tag this Judgment!K.C. Devan Vs. P.A. Vincent
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
A. Radha : Member Appellant is the 2nd opposite party in C.C.No.347/09 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The Forum Below partly allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay as per P2 receipt with interest @ 12% interest along with cost of Rs.1,000/-. This order is under challenge before this Commission. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant deposited Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- on 05/04/2011 and on 07/07/2006 respectively with the 1st opposite party. It was assured 14% interest per annum. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party to return the fixed deposit amount and inturn the 1st opposite party prolonged and has not disbursed the amount so far. In the month of March and April 2009 the complainant personally requested the 2nd opposite party at the 1st opposite party firm to disburse the fixed deposit which was not carried out by the opposite party. The complaint is filed to disburse the amount of Rs.3,20,625/- on the fixed deposit of Rs.1,50,000...
Tag this Judgment!A.P. Kesavadev Vs. Ambika Jayaraman
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC.109/10 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad challenging the order of the Forum dated, February 25, 2012 directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.1,17,000/- being the cost of curing the defects in the house constructed by the opposite party with interest and a cost of Rs.3000/-. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint and as testified by her as PW1 before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainant entrusted the construction of her house with the opposite party and entered into an agreement Ext.A1 dated, November 03, 2007. The rate fixed was Rs.675/- per sq.ft and the agreement was that opposite party should complete the construction within 6 months. It is specifically provided in the agreement that only qualitative materials should be used for the construction and only well qualified workmen and masons should be engaged for work. Opposite party did not complete the work as prom...
Tag this Judgment!The Co-ordinator, It @ School Project, Scert Buiding, Poojappura, Thir ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties 2 and 3 in CC.10/13 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram challenging the order of the Forum dated, May 30, 2013 directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.17,700/- with 10% interest being the value of the defective laptop supplied by them to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as compensation. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainant is a school teacher in Government Higher Secondary School, Edappal. He has placed an order for Chirage Branded Lap top/Net book under the œLap tops and Net books for the teacher Scheme? co-ordinated by the IT @ School project. He purchased the same for Rs.17,700/-. Opposite parties have ensured that the lap tops supplied to him under the said scheme covered 3 years on site warranty. The response time for solving an issue with lap tops would be a minimum of 2 working days failing which an amount of Rs.100/- will be levie...
Tag this Judgment!Vinod Kumar Vs. Delhi Development Authority, Through Vice-chairman and ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
N.P. Kaushik, Member (Judicial): 1. Appellant Shri Vinod Kumar has impugned the order dated 3.3.2010 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi (in short the `District Forum. Vide said orders the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant in the District Forum was dismissed. 2. Facts in brief are that the complainant got himself registered with respondent/DDA for the allotment of a plot in the year 1981 under a scheme called Rohini LIG Scheme. He was allotted LIG plot bearing No.62, in Pocket-8, Sector-24, Rohini measuring 32 Sq.mtr. vide letter dated 29.10,1991. He was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.21,229/-. Admittedly, the complainant deposited the aforesaid amount in three instalments and as and when called upon to do so. He remained in touch with the DDA for handing him over the physical possession of the plot. He did not receive any letter from DDA informing him of the status of allotment. Last such letter in the series written to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Life Insurance Corporation of India Through the Manager (Landhpf), New ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
N.P. Kaushik, Member (Judicial). 1. The appellant has impugnedthe orders dated 8.8.2011 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, M Block, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi (in short `District Forum) vide which the LRs of the deceased Shri Subhash Chander were held entitled to the insurance claim in respect of the deceased Shri Subhash Chander with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of claim to the date of payment along with compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. 2. Deceased Shri Subhash Chander was insured jointly with his wife Mrs. Murti Devi vide policy No.121057317 commencing from 28.2.2000 to 28.2.2020. The policy was known as Jeevan Sathi ( double cover joint life plan) with profits (with accident benefit.). Shri Subhash Chander died on 21.1.2003 i.e. within three years from the date of commencement of the policy. Claim filed by his wife was repudiated by the appellant vide letter dated 24.8.2004 on the grounds of concealment of true and material facts. Contention of t...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority and Another V ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
V.V. Jose : Member Both these appeals were preferred by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties against the order in CC.No.175/2011 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. 2. The case in short is as follows. The complainant is a consumer of the 1st opposite party Kerala Water Authority (Consumer No.311 BN 2001). The remittance of water charge was done upto October 2011 by the complainant. However, the supply of water was detached due to renovation work of the road. Even though the opposite party was collecting charges, they have not provided with water. Opposite party did not restore supply even after the written request of the consumer, which is a deficiency in service. The second opposite party entrusted the renovation work, which resulted in detachment. Hence this complaint for a direction to reinstate water supply along with a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. First opposite party in their version contended the renovation work in Beenachi Kakkadamkunnu road through where the pipe line was drawn, was d...
Tag this Judgment!The Regional Engineer, Kerala State Housing Board, Chakkorathukulam, K ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
P.Q. Barkathali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in OP.283/02 on the file of CDRF, Kozhikkode under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.28,958 being cross subsidy amount, Rs.5684/- being the excess amount collected from the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as compensation. 2. The case of the complainant as testified by her as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:- Opposite parties are the Kerala State Housing Board. The plot with building No.PWB E5-230 under the Medical College Scheme initiated by the opposite parties was originally allotted to Sri.M.B.Babu who has transferred the same to the complainant with the consent of the opposite parties. The entire cost of the building was remitted by the complainant as a pre condition for the transfer. The complainant was entitled to cross subsidy of 15% of the total amount paid, as per the decision of the Board ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »