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.
Ravi Ramkrishna Gharat Vs. Shaman Wheels Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: 1. Heard on the point of admission. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant pleaded that high end Car, Mercedes Benz C Class Model was purchased by the Complainant on 22.02.2012 under a proforma invoice after making payment of Rs.35,05,387/- along with other taxes. This was a dream of the Complainant to have a status symbol Car for sparingly using by the Complainant. However, on 18.06.2013 i.e. almost after one and half year the Complainant noticed technical defect as the car drove out of road. On complaint it was given for repair to the street side mechanic on instructions of Opponent. The car was returned duly repaired on 26.06.2013. Thereafter, the Complainant, on 28.06.2013 was driving car to take his pregnant wife to hospital. However, the car was stuck-off and could not take forward as there was unknown manufacturing defect developed. Car was again given to the Opponent No.1 for repair. Since thereafter, the car was not taken into possession because of t...
Rajendra Fallari Vs. Corporation Bank and Another
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Mar-19-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. Consumer complaint filed by the complainant on 29/04/11 has been dismissed by the Lr. District Forum, South Goa, by order dated 06/12/13, on two counts: One. Because of a pending Civil Suit bearing RCS No. 316/11/F filed on 17/11/11 by OP No. 2. Two. Because the loan taken by the complainant from the OP Bank was for commercial purposes. 2. Some more facts are required to be stated to dispose off this appeal and for that the parties hereto are being referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title in the said complaint. 3. The complainant had taken a term loan from OP Bank to run his business in the name of M/s Cannon Ball in the sum of Rs.16 lacs on or about 14/05/04 and the complainant had created an equitable mortgage in favour of the Bank in respect of plot No. 3 of survey No. 43/0 of Village Aquem Baixo with the house situated thereon, and, as on 29/02/08 the complainant was due and payable to the OP Bank, a sum of Rs.11,14,268/-. 4. Thereafter,...
New India Assurance Company Ltd. New Delhi Vs. Sh. Bachu Singh, Gurgao ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-2014
S.C. Jain, Member 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/OP against complainant/respondent under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after called the Act). 2. The relevant facts of the appeal are that, complainant/respondent was the owner of vehicle No UP-14-803794 Tavera Jeep, having cases No. MA6AB6G768 and Engine No. 3FH 80489, the jeep was a tourist vehicle under tourist permit. It was insured with appellant/OP for a sum of Rs. 6,92,817/- for the period of 30.08.2008 to 29.06.2009. This vehicle was parked near Kilkar Car Petrol Pump, Sector-10, Rohini, Delhi-110085 on 30.10.2008, and the driver was sleeping in the vehicle. Three persons claiming themselves from the Crime Branch of the Police, came and asked the driver to see their officer sitting in the vehicle at a distance of 10-15 yards. When the driver of the jeep went to see the said officer, having left the key inside the jeep, the three miscreants immediately started the jeep and fled away with it....
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bachu Singh
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-19-2014
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) This appeal has been filed by the appellant/OP against complainant/respondent under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after called the Act). 2) The relevant facts of the appeal are that, complainant/respondent was the owner of vehicle No UP-14-803794 Tavera Jeep, having cases No. MA6AB6G768 and Engine No. 3FH 80489, the jeep was a tourist vehicle under tourist permit. It was insured with appellant/OP for a sum of Rs. 6,92,817/- for the period of 30.08.2008 to 29.06.2009. This vehicle was parked near Kilkar Car Petrol Pump, Sector-10, Rohini, Delhi-110085 on 30.10.2008, and the driver was sleeping in the vehicle. Three persons claiming themselves from the Crime Branch of the Police, came and asked the driver to see their officer sitting in the vehicle at a distance of 10-15 yards. When the driver of the jeep went to see the said officer, having left the key inside the jeep, the three miscreants immediately started the jeep and fl...
Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. Rohidas Kishan Jadhav and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-19-2014
Uma S. Bora, Member: 1. Appeal No.31/2010 arising out of complaint case No.317/2009 while appeal No.32/2010 arising out of C.C.No.431/2009 and appeal No.230/2010 is arising out of C.C.No.593/2009. All these appeals are filed by Syngenta India Ltd. through its Regional Sales Manager Shri.Sangle, Pune challenging the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum Ahmednagar partly allowing above mentioned three complaints. All the appeals are related to common subject matter. Hence we are deciding these appeals by common judgment and order. 2. Complaints were filed regarding the defective seeds of tomato manufactured by Syngenta India Ltd. Complainant Rohidas Kisan Jadhav, resident of Ambad, Ahmednagar had purchased 7 packets of 10 gm tomato seeds on 30.10.2008 for the consideration of Rs.4480/-. Said seeds were sown in 60R of area of land Gut No.90/06. Complainant Sunil Rambhau Walunj resident of Aurangpur, Tq.Akole, Dist.Ahmednaagr had purchased two packets of 10 gms each on 26.1...
State Bank of India Vs. Kanta Devi and Others
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-19-2014
Padma Pandey, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.01.2014, 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 qua Opposite Party No.2 (now appellant) and directed it as under:- œ15. In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party No.2 is found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.2 and is dismissed qua Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.2 is directed to:- [a] To pay the insured amount of Rs.1.25 lacs to the Complainants; [b] To pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- on account of deficiency in service; [c] To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation; 16. The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.2; thereafte...
Hansu Daleep Jatwani Vs. Gurukripa Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-2014
P.B. Joshi, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Complainant booked a flat with opponent in the project called œCleopatra? to be constructed on Plot Nos.42, 43, 44 and 45 in Sector 15-C, CBD, Belapur in Navi Mumbai. It was a duplex flat admeasuring 2200 sq.ft. bearing No.1103/1203A for a total consideration of Rs.14,30,000/-. Initially, complainant paid Rs.3,25,000/- and opponent acknowledged the receipt in the letter dated 30/08/1993. Then from time to time, amounts were paid by the complainant to the opponent. As per complainant she received a letter dated 21/10/1999 from opponent intimating that said project was being abandoned giving option one of which was worth considering of that shifting of booking to another ongoing project. By that time, complainant had paid Rs.7,25,000/-. Then, complainant accepted said proposal of shifting of booking. Opponent has issued three allotment letters on 11/12/2002, two for flats bearing Nos.502B and 503A which are adjoining each other admeasuring ...
V.R. Patil and Another Vs. Ushakiran A. Jadhav and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-19-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 19/04/2001 passed in Consumer Complaint bearing CC No. 131/2000 by the District Consumer Forum, Buldhana by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainants as set out in the complaint in brief is that the deceased Atmaram Dagaduji Jadhao was the husband of the complainant No.1 and father of the complainant Nos. 2,3,4 and5. He was serving as Superintendent of Police and holding charge as Principal, Police Training School, at Khandala. The opposite party (for short O.P.) Nos. 1and2 are also serving in police department. They floated a housing scheme under the name and style as œPolice Vasahat, Geeta Nagar? at Hingna Road Bypass, Akola for police officials. Mr. Babasahed Kangale was serving as Superintendent of Police at Akola. He had inspired the O.P. Nos. 1and2 to float the said scheme. The O.P. Nos. 1and2 published booklet about that scheme. The deceased Mr. Atmaram Jad...
K.K. Prabavathy Vs. Regional Manager, Jrg Securities Limited and Anoth ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-18-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC 200/2011 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated, October 22, 2012. 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: The complainant is having a share trading account with 1st opposite party M/S. JRG Securities Limited, Kochi has account number KTRN 4009 dated 11/7/2006. The above account was operated through the 2nd opposite party in Palakkad who is the franchisee of the 1st opposite party when the complainant left for Bangalore in September 2006, the 2nd opposite party was given Power of Attorney to deal with the shares of the complainant. When the complainant received a final summary dated 7/8/09 from the 1st opposite party through the 2nd opposite party it has came to know that 1000 shares of M/S.Bellary Steels and Alloy which were held by...
Bharat Bhushan Singla Being Representative and Nominee of Late Meenu S ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-18-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.12.2013 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 Late Smt. Meenu Singla, wife of the complainant, had purchased a Life Insurance Policy bearing No.1200800716462 on 21.11.2008 from the Opposite Party through its agent Mrs. Jaspal Kaur, who was based at Chandigarh. It was stated that the complainants wife was regularly making payment of premium for the said Policy without any default and the complainant had been declared as a nominee in the said Policy. It was further stated that at the time of buying the Policy, it was duly disclosed to the agent that the complainants wife had been diagnosed with Brain Tumor and was getting treatment for the same. It was further stated that copy of her income tax return for the ass...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »