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.
Sumer Chand Maurya Vs. the Principal Subhash Chandra Bose Academy
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Mar-14-2014
C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.06.2011 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, in consumer complaint No. 88 of 2010, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint against the opposite parties and has directed them to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,575/- within a month from the date of the order, failing which the complainant has also been held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the above amount from the date of filing the consumer complaint till payment. The opposite parties were also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant towards litigation expenses and mental agony. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant “ Sh. Sumer Chand Maurya had got his daughter Km. Alpana Maurya admitted in Subhash Chandra Bose Academy, Vill. and P.O. Nathuwawala, Raipur, Dehradun in the year 2006 in Class 8th and had deposited the admission fee along with other expenses. The complainants daughter ...
M.K. Ravi Rao Vs. Axis Bank Limited, Rep. by Its Vice President P. Des ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
Oral Order: (S. Bhujanga Rao, Member.) The Revision Petition No.11/2014 arose out of the order of the District Forum-II. Hyderabad dated 19-3-2013 made in I.A.No.258/2011 in C.C.No.242/2011 and the Revision Petition No.12/2014 arose out of the order of the District Forum-II. Hyderabad dated 19-3-2013 made in I.A.No.259/2011 in C.C.No.242/2011. The revision petitioner is the petitioner/complainant in I.As 258/2011 and 259/2011 and the respondents in both the petitions are the respondents in the R.Ps. Since the parties to the revision petitions are one and the same and their contentions are also the same, both the revision petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The brief facts that led to the filing of these revision petitions are as under: The revision petitioner filed consumer complaint in C.C.No.242/2011 on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad against respondent No.1/opposite party i.e. Axis Bank for repayment of a sum of Rs.47,330/- alleging ...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Avtar Singh
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
Nawab Singh, President (Oral): National Insurance Company Limited is in appeal against the order dated January 22nd, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Hisar, whereby the complaint filed by Avtar Singh, seeking benefits of insurance in respect of his vehicle, which was stolen during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy, was accepted. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is produced as under:- œthis complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.7,15,278/- i.e. insured amount, to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of theft i.e. 28.1.2012, till payment. Complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- for his harassment, mental agony etc. and litigation expenses of Rs.2200/- against the opposite parties.? 2. Avtar Singh-complainant (respondent herein) got his vehicle bearing registration No.HR-20-V-0266 insured with National Insurance Company Lim...
Cox and Kings India (P) Ltd. by Its Manager, Ceebros âandeuro;andoeli ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
(The Respondent is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain relief. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant / opposite party filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.297/2003, dated 08.03.2010. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 13.02.2014, 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 opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant availed the service of the opposite party for the purpose of tour by paying Rs.10,970/- towards charges for stay of three days in the hotel-lodging (resort), pick-up-drop etc at Kumarakom in Kerala for their stay and the opposite party made arrangements for the stay of the complainant with Golden Waters for their stay and after staying i...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Vs. Birendra Pras ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 05.06.2012 passed by the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal in consumer complaint No. 20 of 2008, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant “ opposite party to pay sum of Rs. 1,38,000/- to the respondent “ complainant together with interest @6% p.a. from 05.10.2006 till payment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle No. UA-09-5354, which was insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Limited for the period from 27.02.2006 to 26.02.2007. On 14.07.2006, the said vehicle met with an accident at a place about 2 kms. from Devprayag. The complainant submitted an estimate of repairs to the tune of Rs. 3,23,709/-. However, the claim lodged by the complainant was repudiated by the insurance company vide letter...
Bimal Walia, Government Contractor and Supplier Vs. Kamla Devi
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
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 him, by respondent-Kamla Devi, has been allowed and a direction given to him to pay a sum of Rs.1,64,400/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of deficiency in service and Rs.4,000/- on account of compensation for harassment and Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost. 2. Appellant owned a house site in Mandi town. She wanted to construct a house on that site, for which a plan had been got approved from Municipal Committee. Appellant, who is a Government Contractor, was approached by the respondent for the construction of house. An agreement was executed between the appellant and respondent on 03.04.2012. The said agreement is Annexure C-3. In terms of agreement, a single storeyed structure was to be raised. The structure was ...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Ravish Kumar
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dt. 08.06.2012. 2) Relevant facts relating to this appeal are that the complainant was allotted a flat No. 7, Sector-23, Pocket-6, Ist Floor, Category Cat, 2 Rohini under residential scheme of OP DDA under I SFS as per draw held on 01.08.1994. It was alleged that the complainant deposited entire instalments as per schedule of DDA and nothing was due against the complainant/respondent after full payment. Complainant/respondent requested the OP/appellant to handover physical possession of the flat. However, the officials of the appellant advised complainant/respondent to submit certain documents for taking possession. In compliance thereof, the complainant/respondent submitted required documents including affidavit, undertaking and conveyance deed duly stamped by collector of stamp Vikas Sadan vide receipt No. REC/H/07/14268 on 23.03.2007 and vide receipt No. REC/H/07/17678 on 11.04.2007 with O...
Heritage View Co.Operative Housing Soc. Ltd. and Others Vs. Kiran H. H ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: 1. Complainant is a Co-operative Housing Society. Earlier the original Complaint was filed through Shri Kewal C. Jain, a duly authorized representative of the Complainant Societys Adhoc Committee, alleging deficiency in service against the Opponents Mr. Kiran H. Hemani and Mr.Harsukhlal A. Hemani, who are the builders and developers of the Complainants Housing Society building. Alleging deficiency in service against the Opponents for non-compliance of statutory obligations of executing deed of conveyance, obtaining occupation certificate, management of corpus fund and maintenance, not providing amenities as per the agreement, not attending leakages and seepages in the Complainants society building, the consumer complaint is filed praying for directions for redressal of the grievances and slapped with monetary claims on account of failure to fulfil the statutory obligations as laid down under the Provisions of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1964 (hereinafter...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sukhjinder Kaur and Another
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
Nawab Singh, President (Oral): 1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated October 11th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Yamuna Nagar, whereby the complaint filed by Smt. Sukhjinder Kaur-complainant (respondent herein) seeking benefits of insurance, was accepted. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- œwe allow the complaint of complainant and direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant would be entitled to initiate action under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.? 2. Mastan Singh (since deceased)-husband of respondent-Sukhjinder Kaur purchased a motorcycle of Hero Honda make from M/s ...
Cox and Kings India (P) Ltd. by Its Manager, Ceebros âandeuro;andoeli ...
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
(The Respondent is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain relief. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant / opposite party filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.297/2003, dated 08.03.2010. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 13.02.2014, 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 opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant availed the service of the opposite party for the purpose of tour by paying Rs.10,970/- towards charges for stay of three days in the hotel-lodging (resort), pick-up-drop etc at Kumarakom in Kerala for their stay and the opposite party made arrangements for the stay of the complainant with Golden Waters for their stay and after staying i...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »