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.
Dr. D.J. Desouza Vs. Managing Director
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. We have heard the Appellant/Complainant in person and perused the records. 2. This appeal is filed by the Complainant against the order dated 24/01/2014 in C.C. No.64/2013 by which the complaint was disposed off on the basis of the admission made by the Complainant. The relevant part of the order reads as follows: œ12. The Complainant has rightly pointed out that the opposite party should be made answerable if the instrument does not give proper services and is not attended to when called upon to do so. However, he stated that instruments is giving satisfactory service since the year 2008 and presently it is working properly. This Forum does not deem it fit to keep the said matter hanging and adjourned sine die. In the eventuality of the Haematology analyser ceasing to function properly or being in need of servicing to be done by the service provider i.e. the Opposite Party and in the event the Opposite Party fails to comply with its contractual obligat...
Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Chennai Vs. Harjeet Singh (D ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
S.A. Saddiqui, Judicial Member 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 disch...
Life Insurance Corporation of India, Through Branch Manager Vs. Shyam ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 22.07.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 359 of 2008, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant “ opposite party to pay the insured amount to the respondent “ complainant together with Rs.10,000/- towards damages. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that during his lifetime, late Sh. Nathi Ram, the deceased husband of the complainant “ Smt. Shyam Lata Chauhan, had purchased life insurance policy for assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 28.01.2003 and purchased another life insurance policy for assured sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on 28.01.2004. The complainant was the nominee under both the policies. The premium of the said policies was paid by the life assured well in time and both the policies were alive. However, the li...
State Bank of India, Mandi, Through Its Chief Manager Vs. Sansar Chand ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 03.10.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it (the appellant) and respondent No.2, Punjab National Bank by respondent No.1, has been allowed and a direction issued to the appellant to credit an amount of Rs.10,000/-, in the account of the respondent/ complainant, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of complaint, to the date of making of credit entry and also to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for harassment and another sum of Rs.3,000/-, on account of costs of the complaint. 2. Admitted facts are that respondent/ complainant-Sansar Chand Kapoor, had a savings bank account with the appellant and he was also having ATM card facility, linked with the said savings bank account. On 10.11.2011, respondent/ complainant-Sansar Chand Kapoor, came to know t...
M. Sasikala and Others Vs. Department of Posts Rep. by Its Sub-post Ma ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-20-2014
Gopala Krishna Tamada, President 1) This petition is filed by the petitioner/complainant seeking permission to withdraw the amount deposited before the Dist. Forum, Nellore. 2) The complainant filed CC No. 39/2011 before the Dist. Forum, Nellore claiming certain amounts, compensation and costs. 3) After notice to the Opposite Parties and after following the due procedure provided under the Consumer Protection Act, the Dist. Forum directed the Opposite Parties to refund an amount of Rs. 1,05,000/-. 4) Dis-satisfied with the said amount, the complainant approached this Commission and filed FA No. 61/2013 and the said appeal is pending before us. 5) Be that as it may, it appears that the respondents/Opposite Parties have deposited the said amount of Rs. 1, 05,000/- as per the orders passed by the Dist. Forum. In those circumstances, the petitioner/complainant was constrained to file cheque application before the Dist. Forum seeking permission to withdraw the said amount. However, the...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Dehradun Vs. Ritu Shah
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Mar-19-2014
C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.07.2012 passed by the District Forum, Nainital in consumer complaint No. 111 of 2008, whereby the District Forum has partly allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,29,050/- as compensation together with interest @ 6% per annum on the said amount pendente lite and future within a month from the date of the order and Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of litigation. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant Smt. Ritu Shah is the registered owner of a commercial vehicle bearing registration No. UA04- D-1344. She got this vehicle comprehensively insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. “ opposite party for the period from 05.05.2007 to 04.05.2008 at an IDV of Rs. 4,80,000/-. On 20.01.2008, when the insured vehicle was returning from Rai Bareilly to Nainital, it met with an accident and got badly damaged. An FIR was lodged with Police St...
The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Rup Lal and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-19-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been directed against the order dated 28.09.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by respondent No.1-Rup Lal against the present appellant and respondents No.2 and 3, has been allowed, only as against the present appellant, and a direction given to it (the appellant) to pay a sum of Rs.60,170/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on account of insurance money and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost. 2. Respondent No.1-Rup Lal, is a consumer of Liquefied Petroleum Gas, bottled by respondent No.3 and supplied by respondent No.2-Shri Anil Kumar Awasthi, Sole Proprietor of M/s. Maha Maya Gas Service. Respondent-Rup Lal filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging ...
D. Kanniappa Raja Vs. M/S. Cholamandalam Ms. General Insurance, Rep. b ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-2014
(The appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against opposite parties praying for certain relief. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant /complainant filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.27/2011, dated 16.08.2011. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 04.03.2014, 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 The complainant is the appellant. His father Dhanapal insured the vehicle TN 39 AL 4093 Eicher lorry and he died on 22.10.2007. The complainant immediately informing the same to the opposite party for the purpose of name transfer along with no objection letter of his mother and his sister and thereafter since the opposite party assured for the same, he had paid premium for 3 years subsequently...
Dr. PravIn Vs. Sau. Varsha Shankar Rathod
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-19-2014
S.B. Sawarkar, Member: 1. The present appeal bearing No. A/NGP/176/07 takes and exception to impugned order dated 17/02/2007 issued by the Washim District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum in CC No. 75/06 of Akola -30/06 of Washim. Vide above order the Forum granted the complainant a compensation of Rs.12000/- for physical and mental harassment, Rs.10,000/- for economic expenditure , Rs.3,000/- as cost of the complaint by the O.P. to be given within 30 days from the date of order and if not paid to be given at the rate of 9% p.a. till the date of payment. 2. Aggrieved against the order the original O.P. Dr. Pravin Chavan filed the appeal and hence, being called as appellant for brevity, against the original complainant Smt. Varsha Shankar Rathod now being called as respondent in the appeal. 3. The facts of the case are that the respondent filed the complaint against the appellant that she went to the hospital of the appellant for taking a treatment of her pregnancy. The appellant gave h...
Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Another V ...
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Mar-19-2014
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member: 1. This appeal has been received by remand from the Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide order dated August 29th, 2013 passed in Revision Petition No.2265 of 2012. 2. Neelam Sharma-complainant (respondent herein) was allotted plot No.1261 in Sector 26 (Extension), Panchkula vide allotment letter No.14715 dated October 13th, 1995 at a tentative price of Rs.1,58,881/-. The respondent deposited the entire amount of the plot as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. The appellants-opposite parties also charged the extension fee, enhanced price of the plot and interest accrued thereon. 3. The respondent-complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act), 1986 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Panchkula, with the allegations that the opposite parties wrongly charged interest on the price of the plot without offering the poss...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »