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.
Jasleen Kaur Kochhar Vs. M/S. Chandigarh Overseas Private Ltd. Through ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
Padma Pandey, Member: 1. In brief, the facts of the case are that, being lured by the reputation of Opposite Party No.1, the complainant booked two units of Design Studio, on the assurance that the same would be delivered in the first half of the year 2009. The complainant was offered a 250 sq. feet (125 sq. feet each) of super area in Design Studio No.10 at 6th Floor in Block A-1, in the Industrial Knowledge (Fashion Technology) Park Sector 90, Mohali for a sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.5 lacs each) vide Annexure C-1. On 11.01.2007, a Developer Buyer Agreement, Annexure C-2, was entered into between the complainant and Opposite Party No.1, at Chandigarh. It was stated that as per Clause 8 of the said agreement, the construction of the design studios was to be completed and the possession was to be delivered within 30 months from the start of construction. As per Clause 28, the developer i.e. Opposite Party No.1, was to compensate the complainant for delay beyond 30 months o...
Bhardwaj Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan Construction Corporati ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: [1] The Complainant is a cooperative housing society. Complainant Society availed the services of the Opponent No.1 “ M/s. Rajasthan Construction Corporation for carrying out certain structural repairs and rectification of the building and services of the Opponent No.2 “ Mr. Nitin Doshi was availed as a technical expert in his capacity as an architect for finalizing the terms and conditions of the tender and awarding tender. Alleged deficiency is on account of carrying out defective work by the Opponent No.1 and not responding to the request of the Complainant Society by the Opponent No.2 in his capacity as an expert is the crux of the complaint. [2] Admittedly, the work was assigned to the Opponent No.1 under the supervision of the Opponent No.2. Work was commenced in the month of January-1995 and it was completed in the month of December-1996 i.e. beyond the stipulated time as per the terms and conditions. Opponents herein filed a revision peti...
Keshav Datt Sreedhar Vs. M/S. Emaar Mgf Land Limited and Another
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.01.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, while acting upon the information given by the Opposite Parties, in various advertisements issued in leading newspapers, submitted an application dated 8.1.2008 for the allotment of a unit in the Central Plaza (hereinafter to be referred to as Complex), which was a retail offering segment of the project named Mohali Hills, Sector 105, Mohali. It was stated that after negotiations between the complainant and the Opposite Parties, the complainant paid Rs.8,01,689/- to the Opposite Parties, as part payment of the price of unit in question. It was further stated that a Central Plaza Premises Buyers Agreement dated 31.3.2008, Annexure C-1, was executed a...
Maria Filipa Rodrigues and Another Vs. Joseph Menezes
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Mar-21-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. The Opposite Parties in CC No. 11/12 have filed this appeal, and, it is directed against order dated 30/01/14 of the Lr. South Goa District Forum, Margao, by which the complaint filed by the complainant has been partly allowed. 2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose off this appeal, and, for that the parties to this appeal are being referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the complaint. 3. The OPs are the owners of the land under Chalta No. 17 of P.T. Sheet No. 7 of Margao City Survey and are also the builders of a building known as Livra Apartments constructed therein. 4. By an agreement dated 26/8/1999, styled as an agreement for construction and sale, the OPs agreed to construct and sell to the complainant a flat identified as flat No. 2 with a super built up area of 66.53 sq.mtRs.situated on the first floor of the said building which was then under construction, for a sum of Rs.3.9 lacs. The said agreement also stipulated...
Goldstar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. J.V. and Brothers
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
P.B. Joshi, Judicial Member: [1] Complainant is a co-operative housing society formed by the purchasers of the respective flats in the building constructed by the opposite party. The complainant society is duly registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and is a housing society formed for the purpose of protecting the common interests of its members and maintenance, upkeep and for the common ownership of the property and the building where the members reside, having its registered office at Kandivali west, Mumbai. Secretary of the complainant society has filed the present complaint as authorized by the society. [2] Opposite party is a partnership firm engaged in business of development of land and constructing thereon building structures for residential and other uses. In the year 1979 to 1980, the opposite party has entered into agreements with 46 flat purchasers agreeing and undertaking to form a co-operative society of the flat purchasers and conveying the said bu...
Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harjeet Singh (Dead) (Th ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
S.A. Saddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 10.4.2008 passed by Ld. DCDRF Barracks Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in complaint case No.811/2007, Shri Harjeet Singh Vs. Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. 2. The complainant/Respondent (late) Shri Harjeet Singh was insured by the appellant/OP Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. under the scheme of œHealth Shield Premium Insurance Policy? with effect from 13.7.2005 till 19.6.2008 by the IRDA for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and the cumulative bonus of Rs.45,000/-. The insured paid premium regularly. The appellant OP issued policy cover for 2005-06 and 2006-07 and the last was from 20.6.07 to 19.6.08. The complainant/respondent felt chest pain and breathlessness on 11.4.07. He was immediately rushed to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, Janak Puri, New Delhi for treatment. During the course of treatment by the Doctors, various tests were conducted and he was discharged on 13.-4.07. In his di...
Nirmal Vs. Jayesh
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
S.B. Sawarkar, Member: 1. The present appeal takes an exception to the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Akola in complaint case No. 61/2006 dated 27/09/2007. Vide above order the Forum granted the complaint and directed the opposite party to return Rs. 50,000/- and pay interest at the rate of 9% on the above sum from 26/08/2004 till the payment date and also pay the cost of notice of Rs. 611/- and the cost of the litigation of Rs. 500/- 2. Aggrieved against the impugned order the original O.P. filed the appeal as above. (He being now called as appellant and the original complainant being called as respondent for brevity). 3. The facts involved in the case are that the respondent (through his father) complained that he had deposited Rs.50,000/- with the appellant on the condition of payment of interest at the rate of Rs. 1.25 per month on 01/04/2003 based on the receipt issued on 01/04/2003. The appellant also paid interest for few days. But in the month of August-2004 when ...
Mandava Murali Krishna Vs. Muthavarapu Nalini
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) The opposite party is the appellant and this appeal is directed against the order dated 22-6-2012 made in C.C.No.299/2011 on the file of District Forum, West Godavari District at Eluru whereby the District Forum while allowing the complaint filed by the respondent herein directed the appellant to provide car parking to the flat of the respondent herein together with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The brief facts of the complaint are that the respondent/complainant purchased flat No.12 in 3rd floor of Sai Sowdha Apartment with built up area of 1100 sft. along with undivided share of land to an extent of 38.57 sq. yds. out of 540 sq. yds. in Sy.Nos.90 and 92 in Satrampadu Gram Panchayat, Eluru for a valuable consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- and the said flat was registered under a sale deed dated 17-6-2009 and the possession of the flat was also delivered on the same day. As no car parking was provided and there are some deficiencies in construction, th...
The Chief Post Master General A.P. Circle, Dak Sadan Abids, Hyderabad ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
Gopala Krishna Tamada, President 1) The wife of C. Shiva Shankar (hereinafter called as deceased) filed a complaint before the Dist. Forum-I, Hyderabad i.e., CC No. 34/2012 against the Opposite Party i.e., The Chief Post Master General claiming an amount ofRs. 1,21,820/- pertaining to Policy No. AP-221540-US with interest from the date of claim petition till the date of realization and to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for mental agony and costs. 2) The brief facts that led to filing of the complaint are: The complainants husband Sri C. Shiv Shankar obtained two Postal Life Insurance Policies bearing Nos. AP-261055-US and AP-221540-US for Rs. 1 lakh each. While so, on 25.6.2009 during the currency of said policies her husband died. When she laid claim, the opposite party settled her claim in respect of Policy No. AP-261055-US only but offered to pay Rs. 21,820/- excluding the sum assured under policy No. AP-221540-US. Despite correspondence and legal notice got issued by the complainan...
M/S. Emaar Mgf Land Limited Manikonda Village and Another Vs. Jagadesh ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
T. Ashok Kumar, Member 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder. The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant applied to the opposite parties for purchase of a three bed room apartment No.49, Tower C, with an approximate built up area of 2723.13 sft for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,92,53,441/-. The complainant paid the registration fee of Rs.9,62,672/- through cheque dated 18.0-7.2008 to the opposite parties. 2. The complainant submits that in spite of several representations and requests the opposite parties failed to furnish the standard templates of construction agreement along with a detailed sale price payment schedule. Even though no construction agreement was provided the opposite parties have presented the second cheque without intimation to the complainant and the said cheque got dishonoured. The complainant due to personal inconvenience requested for cancella...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »