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.
Monsanto Holdings Private Limited and Another Vs. Hari Singh and Other ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-22-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. By this common order, we proceed to dispose of two appeals, filed by two different opposite parties in the same complaint, i.e. Consumer Complaint No.183 of 2013, filed by respondent No.1-Hari Singh on 30.10.2010 against Monsanto Holdings Private Limited (appellant in F.A. No.371 of 2013 and respondent No.2 in F.A. No.415 of 2013); Suri Enterprises (proforma respondent No.2 in F.A. No.371 of 2013) and respondent No.3 in a second appeal, i.e. F.A. No.415 of 2013 filed by Heminder Singh, who was impleaded as opposite party No.3. 2. Hari Singh, respondent/complainant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the appellants in two appeals and Suri Enterprises, The Mall, Solan, making the following allegations therein. Respondent/complainant jointly owned land, measuring 15-08-07 Hectares in Village Kotla, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. In the year 2010, he purchased cauliflower seed from Heminde...
The New India Assurance Company Limited, Through : Divisional Manager ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Mar-22-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.10.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum"), in Complaint Case No.199/2012. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 / complainants and directed the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- jointly and severally to the respondent Nos.1 and 2/ complainants as compensation, along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 12.06.2012 till date of payment. The District Forum, has further directed the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as Advocate Fees and cost of litigation to the complainants. 2. Brief facts of the case, as stated in the complaint filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/complainants before the District Forum are : that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 / complainants had taken a LPG gas connection for the...
Godrej Agrovet Seeds, Godrej Agrovet Ltd. and Others Vs. Vinay Manjhi ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Mar-22-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.08.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum?) in Complaint Case No.CC/27/2012, whereby the complaint filed by the respondent No.1/complainant, has been partly allowed and the District Forum has directed the O.P. Nos.1, 3 and 4 to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.8,300/- to the respondent No.1/complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of order, along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards advocate fees and cost of litigation. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as per pleadings of the complainant are: that the respondent No.1/ complainant is an agriculturist by profession and is earning his livelihood by agricultural operation in his fields. The O.P.No.1, is the manufacturer of standard seeds, O.P.No.2 is an unit of certifying the sta...
K. Shyam Kumar Vs. the New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Its M ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
Gopala Krishna Tamada, President 1) The docket order dt. 17.1.2013 i.e., œNo representation for the complainant. Written arguments of complainant not filed, documents not marked, hence the complaint is dismissed? on the file of Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad is questioned in this appeal. 2) The brief facts that led to filing of the complaint are that the complainant got his Tata Safari vehicle bearing No. 10 AH 0666 insured with the respondent insurance company for sum assured of Rs. 7,50,000/- covering the period from 24.5.2010 to 23.5.2011. While so, it met with an accident on 7.8.2010 and immediately the complainant intimated the said fact to the insurance company. But the insurance company did not depute a surveyor to assess the loss nor get the vehicle repaired. The complainant got the vehicle towed to the mechanic who gave an estimate for Rs. 7, 50,000/- towards repairs and the same was sent to Opposite Party for its approval. After prolonged correspondence, the insurance company...
Patakoti Sathyanarayana Vs. the Foreman Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) The complainant before the District Forum, Adilabad is the appellant and he preferred this appeal dis-satisfied with the order dated 04-3-2013 in C.C.No.44/2012 whereby the District Forum has deducted an amount of Rs.57,730/- out of the chit amount of Rs.5 lakhs and awarded only a sum of Rs.4,42,270/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization of the said amount. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a member of Chit No.ADT02J-20 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and the said chit has been terminated and he paid the monthly subscriptions in time. The complainant demanded the opposite party No.2 several times to pay the said amount but the opposite parties evaded to make payment and therefore he got issued a notice for which opposite party No.2 gave a reply with false allegations. The complainant alleged that one G.Satyanarayana, Asst.BPO of the opposite party visited him and asked...
Para Koteswara Rao and Another Vs. Tirumala Multi Specialty Hospital a ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
Oral Order: (S. Bhujanga Rao, Member) The unsuccessful complainants filed this appeal against the order dt.18.10.2012 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy Dist. made in C.C.No.07/2011, which is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10 lakhs towards medical expenses of the deceased Smt.Para Annamma, to pay Rs.10 lakhs to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony and loss of love and affection of the complainants with the deceased. The appellants are the complainants and the respondents are the opposite parties in C.C.No.07/2011. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint. The case of the appellants/complainants as per the complaint filed by them is as follows: On 06.09.2009, Smt.Para Annamma, who is the wife of the complainant no.1 and mother of complainant no.2 admitted in the hospital of opposite party no.1 due to viral fever, where opposite party no.2 treated her and gave medical prescripti...
Vikram Sethi and Another Vs. Rakesh Verma
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. By this common order, we proceed to dispose of three appeals, particulars whereof are given in the title hereof. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of the appeals may be noticed. Respondent-Rakesh Verma, is engaged in business of construction of flats and their sale. In the year 2006, he constructed a three-storeyed structure with basement meant for parking. In the three storeys, there were flats. Appellants, in all the three appeals, purchased one flat each 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? for different considerations, amounts varying from Rs. 7.00 lacs to Rs. 11.00 lacs. Separate sale deeds were executed, in which very categorically recited that the purchaser, viz. the appellants, shall have the right to park one car each, in the common parking. 3. Completion certificate in respect of the building was issued by the Municipal Corporation in December, 2007 and thereafter the appellants were put in pos...
Suruguru Thara Bai Vs. the Branch Manager, Warangal-ii Branch Office, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
Gopala Krishna Tamada, President 1) Complainant is the appellant herein and this appeal is directed against the order of the Dist. Forum, Warangal in CC No. 20/2012 Dt. 27.9.2013 whereby the Dist. Forum dismissed the complaint. 2) The facts in a nutshell are that the complainants husband S.Uppalaiahduring his life time obtained Golden Jubilee Bhima Gold Policy bearing No. 687518040 from Op1 for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- effective from 21.2.2006. While so, on 9.10.2009 the life assured died of fever. When the claim was made by the complainant in the month of October, 2009 the same was repudiated on 16.3.2011 on the ground that the assured was not in good health at the time of proposal as well as revival. Alleging repudiation of her claim amounts to deficiency of service, the complainant approached the Dist. Forum to direct the Opposite Parties to pay the sum assured under the policy together with attendant benefits, interest, compensation and costs. 3) The respondent insurance company f...
G.P. Maheswari Vs. Skyline Builders, Thiruvananthapuram
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
K. Chandradas Nadar : Judicial Member This is a complaint filed Under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. The allegations in the complaint are that the complainant was the owner in possession of an extent of 40.5 cents of property comprised in survey nos.341/B, 342 and 343/1-3 of Thycaudu village. She obtained the property as per settlement deed No.735/1975.The extent of property conveyed as per the settlement deed is 36.512 cents. The first opposite party is a partnership firm and opposite parties 2 and 3 are the partners. They are engaged in the business of development of properties by constructing multi-storied buildings and apartments. On 10.11.2004 the complainant and opposite parties entered into an agreement to develop the property scheduled in the complaint by constructing multi-storied building. Pursuant to the agreement the complainant executed power of attorney in favour of opposite parties 2 and 3. As security for the prompt performance of the agreement, the complain...
M/S. Videocon Appliances Ltd. Vs. D. Seshagiri Rao and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) The opposite party No.1 before the District Forum, Nalgonda is the appellant and he preferred this appeal against the order dated 17-4-2012 in C.C.No.03/2012 whereby the District Forum directed it to pay a sum of Rs.26,050/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.5,000/-. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant, D.Seshagiri Rao, purchased a Videocon Refrigerator from Chitra Electronics and T.V. Service Centre i.e. opposite party No.2 on 30-8-2006 by paying a sum of Rs.6,800/-. Opposite party No.2 gave a warranty card for the said refrigerator, for a period of six years, from the date of purchase. When the said refrigerator gave trouble and was not functioning properly, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2. The representatives of opposite party No.2 visited the complainant on 14-4-2011 and informed the complainant that the co...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »