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. Sheenu Chits Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Dharampal Katiyal
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2014
N.P. Kaushik, Member (Judicial): 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 repres...
Eeran Chawla, New Delhi Vs. Vivekanand Co-operative Group Housing Soci ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2014
NP. Kaushik, Judicial Member 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 purpose ...
Gagandeep Brar Vs. M/S. Parsvnath Developers Limited and Another
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-18-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant came to know that Opposite Party No.1, had widely advertised its project of a township, in the name and style of œParsvnath Prideasia?, Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technology Park, Chandigarh, envisaging the sale of residential units, to be developed, and constructed by it, on the land of Opposite Party No.2. The complainant, applied for the allotment of a residential unit, for which a sum of Rs.9,82,375/-, as booking amount was deposited by her, vide receipt dated 23.10.2007 Annexure C-4. The complainant was allotted residential three bed room flat, Type 1, Category C, No.103, First floor, Block No.C-17, measuring 2825 square feet super built area, in Parsvnath Prideasia, Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technology Park, Chandigarh, vide allotment letter No.PDL/CHB/07/07 dated 28.09.2007, copy whereof is Annexure C-2. Flat Buyer Agreement dated 28.02.2008, Annexure C-1, was executed amongst the parties. The comp...
The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Vaidyuthibhavan and Oth ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-15-2014
Santhamma Thomas : Member Aggrieved by the order in CC No.80/2012 on the file of District Forum, Idukki, the Respondents in the Lower Forum œThe Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board? the 1st Appellant, œThe Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, KSEB? the 2nd Appellant and K.R.Dileep, Sub Engineer, KSEB? the 3rd Appellant (hereinafter together shall be referred as Appellants) preferred this appeal against order dated 27th day of August, 2012 against complainant in the Lower Forum œSiva Sankaran Nair? the respondent. 2. The respondent being a consumer of the appellants under consumer No. 1462 and the appellants are used to issuing spot bill for the respondent. The respondent had a faulty meter on which an average bill of 66 units was issued on recurring base and the respondent made sure that he was not using 66 units. Every time the respondent had to end up paying Rs.102/- based on the 66 units. On multiple requests in changing the faulty meter the appellants dir...
Jigyas Arora Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 05.10.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondent, has though been allowed, yet the amount of money, which has been awarded on account of insurance claim, is below his claim. 2. Appellant owned a goods carriage, which was insured with the respondent in the sum of Rs.3,48,000/- for the period from 12.05.2010 to 11.05.2011. On 29.07.2010, vehicle met with an accident and was damaged. Intimation of accident was given to the respondent, with whom, it was insured. A surveyor deputed by respondent assessed the loss at Rs.1,74,500/-. Claim was, however, repudiated on the ground that at the time, when accident took place, there was one unauthorized passenger, on board the vehicle, and this amounted to violation of one of the terms and conditions of the policy. 3. A...
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and Another Vs. Ranbir Singh
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member: 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated July 8th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Panipat, whereby the complaint filed by Ranbir Singh-complainant (respondent herein) seeking benefits of insurance in respect of his truck, which was damaged during the subsistence of the insurance policy, was accepted in the following terms:- œWe hereby allowed the complaint with a direction to opposite parties to pay Rs.6,27,000/- within 30 days from the announcement of this order failing which this amount will carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. Cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2200/- is also allowed to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant.? 2. There is a delay of 133 days in filing of this appeal the condonation of which has been sought by the appellant by filing an application under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act. 3...
P.V.V. Satyanarayana Vs. the Managing Director, Analytical Technologie ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
Oral Order: (Justice GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) The complainant is the unsuccessful complainant before the District Forum and he approached this Commission by filing the present appeal against the order dated 19-2-2013 in C.C.No.104/2011 on the file of District Forum-II, East Godavari at Rajahmundry whereby his complaint filed U/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was dismissed on the ground that he is not a consumer to attract the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts are that the appellant is a qualified lab technician and he is the Proprietor of Sri Satya Sai Lab. He purchased Hematology Analyzer Model No.2062 for the purpose of clinical examination of blood samples etc., from the respondents herein for a total consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- and paid an amount of Rs.1,47,000/- and undertook to pay the balance amount of Rs.53,000/- after installation. As per the complainant, the said equipment never functioned properly after installation and on account...
Bcl Homes Ltd. Through Its Managing Director Vs. DIn Dayal Singh Bedi
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 28.01.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, the Opposite Party (now Revision-Petitioner), was proceeded against exparte. 2. The facts of the Consumer Complaint, bearing No.757 of 2013, are that, the complainant, in the month of March, 2012, after going through the advertisements, got published by the Opposite Party, in various newspapers, with regard to the sale/booking of three bed room apartments each, having an area of 2170 square feet, in its project, under the name and style of œBCL Homes Limited?, approached it (Opposite Party), to buy one unit. The complainant was allured by the assurances of the representative of the Opposite Party, that the possession of the said apartment, would be delivered to him, the moment he completed all the required formalities. The total sale...
Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another Vs. Alka Shukla
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 02.05.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.CC/12/273. By the impugned order, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant has been allowed and the appellants/Insurance Corporation, has been directed to pay within period of two months from the date of order the amount payable as accidental benefit under policy Nos.370473369, 384067139 and 385316764 and also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony along with interest @ 06% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 10/09/2012 and also pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-. If the aforesaid amount is not paid within the stipulated period, then the aforesaid amount would be payable along with interest 09% p.a. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the respondent/complainant before the District Forum are : that the during his life time, the husband of the ...
Ansal Lotus Melange Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Lt. Col. Inderj ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 5.12.2013 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it partly allowed the complaint, filed by the complainants (now appellants) and directed the Opposite Parties as under:- œ19. For the reasons recorded above, the OPs are guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed. OPs are directed :- i) To refund an amount of Rs.2,92,131/- for increased area + Rs.9027/- as service tax on increased area + Rs.81,503/- paid as Pre-EMI to HDFC + Rs.25,000/- towards interest free security deposit and maintenance charges of Rs.22,677/- (Total Rs.4,30,338/-) along with interest @12% from the date of the respective deposits by the complainants till realization. ii) To pay compensation of Rs.2 lacs to the complainants for delay in handing over of possession of the flat and chang...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »