Scdrc Court March 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.
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another Vs. Vinod Garg
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Padma Pandey, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.02.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants) as under:- œ10. In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them, jointly and severally. The Opposite Parties are directed to:- [a] To reimburse the remaining claim amount of Rs.1,51,201/-; [b] To pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of deficiency in service; [C] To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation; 11. The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they...
Sh. Umesh Narang, Up. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India Delhi Di ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
S.A. Siddiqui Judicial Member 1. This appeal has been filed by complainant appellant under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Hereinafter called Act) against order dated 02.07.2010 passed by Ld. DCDRF (East) Saini Enclave, New Delhi, in complaint case No.613/09 Umesh Narang Vs. LIC of India. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are noted below: i) Complainant appellant secured œLIC Jeevan Asha II Policy? No.121989082 dated 20.03.2003. The sum assured under the policy was Rs.3/- Lacs which cover major/minor surgical procedures. The complainant paid insurance premium regularly. ii) The complainant/appellant underwent a major surgery/ procedure for cardio-vascular system in Fortis Hospital and remained admitted there from 28.02.2008 to 05.03.2008. He incurred an expenditure of Rs.7,55,995/- for ICD implantation. After discharge from the hospital, the complainant appellant filed medical claim alongwith all necessary documents but the OP LIC repudiated the...
Tabraiz Alam Siddiqui Vs. Md. Mehmood Kamal and Others
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Tarapada Gangopadhyay, Member. MA-554 of 2013 The instant Misc. Application has been filed by the OP No. 3 challenging the maintainability of the Complaint Case No. CC/126/2013, filed before this Commission, on the ground of bar of jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora in the matter arising out of West Bengal (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993. The Ld. Advocate for the Petitioner contends that under the West Bengal (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993 the Consumer Fora, having only limited jurisdiction, have no jurisdiction to entertain or decide any question relating to the matters arising under any of the provisions of the said Act, and as such, the Consumer Fora are not competent to decide the issue in question. In support of his contention the Ld. Advocate referred to and relied upon a decision of the Honble High Court, Calcutta, in Smt. Rita Das Vs. Smt. Jayashri Ghosh and others [2012 (3) CLJ (Cal) 29...
S. Seshayee, Proprietor Vs. P. Chinnaiya and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
(The 1st Respondent is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant / 1st opposite party filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.24/2010, dated 10.08.2011. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 06.03.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The 1st opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant through his representative filed a complaint against the opposite parties 1 to 3 alleging deficiency of service regarding the supply of gas cylinder and claimed to refund of excess amount of Rs.22.71 paid and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for making the complainant by harassing in non supply of the gas cylin...
The Authorized Person Coca-cola Company Products Ltd., Atmakuru Villag ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Oral Order: (Thota Ashok Kumar, Member) 1. The opposite party no.1 is the appellant. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder. 2. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant purchased a Limca 200 ml soft drink from the first opposite party no.2-retailer, manufactured by the first opposite party. At the time of attempting to open the soft drink bottle, the complainant noticed, a carcass of snake and on seeing the same, he did not open the seal of the bottle and exposed the defect, to the first opposite party. The opposite party no.1 is marketing this kind of contaminated soft drink, which contained carcass same, creating hazardous to human life and thus they have committed unfair trade practice, and deficiency in service. For the deficiency committed by the opposite party no.1, in selling this kind of contaminated Limca, legal notice was issued, claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs, for which, there was no reply, though notice was serve...
Branch Manager Uco Bank, Howrah Vs. Anima Das Residing at Kamardanga, ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Tarapada Gangopadhyay, Member This Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 27.9.12 by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah in Complaint Case No. HDF 1 of 2012, directing the Appellant to liquidate the outstanding loan amount in the name of the Respondent/Complainant, to return the deed of the property lying with the Appellant-Bank within one month, and also to pay to the Respondent/Complainant `10,000/- as compensation and ` 2,000/- as litigation cost as well. Further, a direction was also given to pay penalty of ` 50/- per day until full compliance with such directions. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant-Bank/OP sanctioned jointly in favour of the husband of the Respondent/Complainant and the Complainant herself a House Building Loan under UCO SHELTER Scheme for ` 6,47,000/- (letter dated 24.08.2007 duly signed by the Manager, UCO Bank, Shibpur Branch, Howrah). The said letter of the A...
Sushil Vs. Dr. Poonam Bawa
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Nawab Singh, President (Oral): 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated November 13th, 2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Bhiwani, whereby complaint bearing No.228 of 2010 filed by Sushil-complainant (appellant herein) alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Dr. Poonam Bawa-opposite party (respondent herein), was dismissed. 2. Smt. Anita-wife of the appellant was admitted in Bawa Maternity and Nursing Home, Bhiwani, that is, the hospital of respondent on November 26th, 2009 at 8.20 A.M. with pregnancy of six months and 12 days in the stage of full dilate with the history of LPs since 6.00 A.M. She delivered a child at 8.56 A.M. It was a pre-mature delivery. She was discharged on November 27th, 2009. 3. The appellant-complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that at the time of delivery, the respondent-doctor told the appellant, his wife and other fa...
Ramarani Karar, Howrah Vs. Sankar Ghosh, Howrah
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Howrah in complaint case no.CC 66 of 2012 allowing the complaint and directing the OP to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the property in question, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant. The case of the Complainant/Respondent, in short, is that the subject matter of the present dispute is a land measuring 1 katta, 4 chattak, 30 sq. ft. to the northern side out of 3 katta, 4 chattak, 39 sq. ft. together with structure comprised in H.M.C. holding no.51, Carry Road, P.S. Shibpur, District-Howrah. The OP is the owner and the occupier of the property. The OP was in urgent need of money and agreed to sell the land at a consideration of Rs.4,50,000/-. The agreement was executed and the Complainant paid Rs.3 lakh as earnest money. The agreement was valid upto 30th April, 2011. Complainant paid the c...
Pradeep Dharmaik Vs. the National Insurance Company Ltd.
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-22-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Complainant owned a three storeyed building of A-class construction in village Shawala, Post Office Mahasu, Tehsil Kotkhai, District Shimla. The building comprised of twenty three rooms, kitchen, bath room, toilets, etc., which was insured in the sum of Rs.60.00 lacs, with opposite party, for the period from 30.09.2010 to 29.09.2020. On 11.08.2012, when food was being cooked for the labourers, engaged by the complainant, in connection with grading and packing of his fruit crop, leakage of fuel gas took place, due to which fire broke out. The building having extensive wood work, fire spread rapidly and could not be controlled by the complainant, his labourers and the family members as also the neighbours. Fire brigade was called and it was with great difficulty that the fire could be extinguished. Report of the incident was lodged with the police. Opposite party was also apprised of the incident. Due to fire, the building was completely ...
Suresh Kumar Ostwal, Managing Director Vs. N.S. Vijayan
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-22-2014
A. Radha : Member 1. This appeal is preferred by opposite parties against the order in C.C.No.218/2011 on the file of CDRF, Idukki. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he availed a loan for Rs.1,00,000/- to purchase a Jeep from the opposite party and entrusted the RC book of the vehicle with two signed blank cheque leaves drawn in favour of the Union Bank. The complainant paid Rs.21,000/- by D.D and cash through 2nd opposite party whereas no receipt was issued for the same. The complainant paid another Rs.7,000/- to the 1st opposite party for which also no receipt has been issued. The complainant paid another Rs.1,71,200/- to the opposite party for which the receipt was issued. Thus a total amount of Rs.2,07,200/- has been paid to the opposite party. While so, the 1st opposite party demanded Rs.15,400/- towards the closing of the loan account. On 22/02/2011 the opposite party again demanded Rs.1,00,000/- in order to return the documents. The complainant was not able to ply the ve...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »