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.
M/S. Ajay Kumar Sood, Engineers and Contractors Vs. the Oriental Insur ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-18-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. This is a complainants appeal against the order dated 13.11.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby its complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which it filed against the respondent-The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, has been dismissed, on the ground that loss for which indemnification is claimed by the appellant/ complainant, is not covered under the policy, Annexure C-1 (also Annexure R-4). 2. Appellant is a Firm, engaged in the business of construction work. In the month of January, 2008, when the appellant was engaged in the work of constructing a tunnel, near Auckland House School, it got the project insured in the sum of Rs.4.00 crores with the respondent. The break-up of various items for which insurance was got done, is as follows:- (a)Contract worksRs.3.50 crores;(b)Surrounding propertyRs.40.00 lacs; and(c)Debris removalRs.10.00 lacs 3. According to the appel...
C. Sudhaker Vs. Dhl Express India Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2014
Gopala Krishna Tamada, President 1) Complainant is the appellant and he questions the order dt. 27.6.2013 made in CC 160/2012 whereby the Dist. Forum, Ranga Reddy while holding that there is deficiency of service awarded only an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation/mental agony as against the claim of Rs. 5 lakhs. 2) The brief facts are that the complainant booked shipment of sari with blouse, artificial bangles and artificial chains weighing 1.50 Kgs in the office of Op1/R1 on 9.5.2012 by paying necessary charges. Despite the same, as they were not delivered to the addressee, the complainant brought it to the notice of Opposite Parties but the Ops stated that they were taken by the customs authorities, and further requested the complainant to collect the same from Customs Department. As it is amounting to deficiency of service and the complainant was made to suffer a lot, he approached the Dist. Forum and raised the said dispute by filing the said complaint. 3) The same was res...
Dr (Lt Col) Davinder Singh Grewal Vs. Ansal Golf Links Projects Pvt. L ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-18-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant after being retired from Military service in the year 2003, with an intention to settle himself alongwith his family by owning a residential flat/floor in the vicinity of city Chandigarh started scouting for a permanent self owned place of residence. He came to know that the Opposite Parties floated a scheme for the allotment of residential independent floors in their project named as œGolf Links, Mohali?. In response to the advertisements, made by the Opposite Parties, with regard to the aforesaid project, the complainant applied vide application dated 12.02.2009, Ex. C/1, for the allotment of a residential independent floor, in exclusive floors at Ansal Golf Links, Mohali and deposited Rs.2,76,000/- as earnest money alongwith the application form. Allotment letter dated 14.02.2009 Ex. C/2, in respect of Unit No.614, First Floor, measuring 1299 Sq. Ft. at the basic sale price of Rs.2,125/- per square feet, consist...
Suhinder Kaur and Another Vs. M/S. Omaxe Limited (Formerly Omaxe Const ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-18-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) is directed against the order dated 26.01.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), passed in Criminal Petition No.90 of 2013, in Consumer Complaint, bearing No.470 of 2012, vide which, it held that the same (Criminal Petition No.90 of 2013) was devoid of merit, and dismissed the same, being fully satisfied. At the same time, it was made clear that the Judgment Debtor/Opposite Party shall supply the TDS certificate, to the Decree Holders/Complainants, immediately, after it was received from the Income Tax Authorities. 2. The Consumer Complaint, bearing No.470 of 2012, titled as Smt. Suhinder Kaur and another Vs. M/s Omaxe Limited (Formerly Omaxe Construction Limited), was filed by the complainants (now the appellants), in the District Forum, which w...
Chandigarh Housing Board, Through Its Accounts Officer Vs. Dilbagh (in ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-18-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the common order dated 26.12.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it partly accepted one of the Consumer Complaints, bearing No.407 of 2013, titled as Dilbag Singh Vs. Chandigarh Housing Board, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant), as under:- œ In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the act of the opposite party in refunding the amount to the complainant, without paying any interest thereupon, amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Therefore, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed. We order accordingly. The opposite party is directed as under :- i) to refund the deposited amount of Rs.70,000/- with interest at the saving bank rate w.e.f. 4.12.2010 (i.e. one month after the draw of lots) till actual payment t...
M/S. Sheenu Chits Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi and Another Vs. Dharampal Katiya ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2014
NP. Kaushik, Judicial Member 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.4.2010 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-III, Janakpuri, New Delhi (in short District Forum). Vide impugned orders the following directions were passed by the District Forum: œWe direct OP-1 and OP-4 to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.92,400/- paid vide receipts placed on record by the complainant together with 10% interest from Dec., 2003 till such time the above amount is refunded to the complainant. OPs 1 and 4 shall comply with the above mentioned order within 30 days of its receipt failing which proceedings u/s 25/27 of Consumer Protection Act may be initiated against them.? 2. In brief the respondent herein was a member in the Chit Group No. S-17 for Rs.1,50,000/-. Membership came into existence in March, 2002 and the chit was matured in March, 2004. One Shri Om Prakash, who is not a party to the present appeal, but appeared in the District Forum as OP No.3 represente...
Eeran Chawla Vs. Vivekanand Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd.
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2014
N.P. Kaushik, Member (Judicial): 1. The appellant Ms. Eeran Chawla preferred the appeal against the impugned orders dated 17.12.2012 passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-VI, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi (in short District Forum). Vide said orders the complainant of the appellant was dismissed. 2. In brief, the appellant/complainant was allotted a flat bearing No.S-604 in Vivekanand Group housing society (hereinafter referred to as the `housing society. The flat was allotted in the year 1999 and the appellant got physical possession on 24.12.2000. The case of the appellant is that she pointed out several shortcomings in the flat of the housing society. She gave the key of his flat to the housing society for removing the defects and shortcomings. The said key was returned to her on 14.9.2004. Work still remain incomplete. She wrote 13 letters to the housing society. Next submission of the appellant is that she spent Rs.4500/- on essential repairs. She sold the flat and for this purp...
Dr. Durga Nursing Home, Rep.by Its Director Dr. Durga Nursing Home and ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-2014
(The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Hence appellant / 1st opposite party prefer an appeal in F.A.No.1070/2011 praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.35/2003, dated 16.08.2011, while the complainant filed an appeal in F.A.No.683/2012, for enhancement.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The 1st opposite party is the appellant in F.A.No.1070/2011. 2. The complainant is the appellant in F.A.No.683/2012. 3. The complainants wife had delivered a baby boy in the 1st opposite partys nursing home on 26.1.2003 and also undergone sterilization operation on 27.1.2003 and after discharge from the Hospital on 30.1.2013 in continuation of the medical care and post natal check up the complainants wife taken the 42 days old baby to the 1st opposite party nursing home on 10.3.2003 at 12 noon for administering the 1st dose of OPV and DPT as per the schedule...
Chalapathi Chit Fund Private Ltd., Rep. by Its Manager Vs. G. Geetha S ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-18-2014
Oral Order: (S. Bhujanga Rao, Member) This appeal arose out of the order dt.07.06.2013 of the Dist. Consumer Forum at Kurnool made in C.C.No.17/2013 filed by the Respondent/complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opp.party. The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant in C.C.No.17/2013. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint. The brief case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is that her husband Sri.G.Madhusudan joined as a subscriber in the chit bearing no.LT2 ZA-18 for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs run by the opposite party. The complainants husband paid some instalments to the opposite party and thereafter he was missing and a crime no.156/2007 was registered in Parigi Police Station of Ranga Reddy Dist. and the police issued a certificate dated 11.11.2010 stating that the said person was undetected and final report was filed on 29.04.2009 and the same was informed to the opp...
Standard Chartered Bank Through Its Legal Representative, New Delhi Vs ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2014
NP. Kaushik, Judicial Member 1. The appellant has preferred the appeal against the impugned order dated 23.9.2011 passed by the District Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi. Vide said order the following directions were given to the appellant by the Ld. District Forum:- "1. To inform the CIBIL that it settled all outstanding dues of the two credit cards Nos. 5543-7586-8505-4195 and 5543-7588-8502-1770 by settlement dated 31.3.2004 and received the payment of the settled amount within the stipulated period and, as such, the complainant was no more defaulter. 2. The Bank shall desist from indulging in such activity as has been suffered by the complainant and pleaded in the complaint. 3. To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh) for causing harassment, mental agony and pain. 4. To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) as cost of litigation." 2. Facts in brief are that the respondent/complainant Shri Alok Aggarwal and his wife Smt. An...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »