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.
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep. by Its Branch Manager an ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
Oral Order : (Gopala Krishna Tamada, President) 1) The Opposite Parties in CC 163/2012 are the appellants and they challenged the orders passed by the Dist. Forum on 30.4.2013 wherein the Dist. Forum, Warangal while allowing the complaint filed by the respondent herein directed the appellants to pay an amount of Rs.15,27,890/- to the complainant with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization. 2) The brief facts that led to filing of the complaint are: The complainant got his Tata Hitachi Excavator Model ZX 200LC insured with the appellant insurance company by obtaining Vehicle Package Policy for an amount of Rs. 24 lakhs valid from 24.4.2009 to 19.4.2010. During the subsistence of the policy i.e., on 3.12.2009 between 8.00 and 9.00 a.m., when the operator of the excavator stationed the vehicle at Hindustan Construction Canal Earth Work, Navegavpanda village of Chandrapur District in Maharashtra State, the loose soil was sunk and disturbed...
Sheela Devi Vs. M/S. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. and ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 26.08.2013, whereby appellants complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which she filed against the respondent and also one Shri Suresh, the alleged authorized agent of the respondent, has been dismissed with the finding that the insurance cover note, on which the claim of the appellant was based, had been stolen and also it was printed on the cover note in bold letters that the same was valid only if the consideration was paid by cheque and not in cash, whereas the appellant alleged to have paid the premium, in cash. 2. Appellant owns a Maruti Alto car, registered as a taxi. Vehicle was insured with the respondent for a sum of Rs.1,70,000/-, for the period from 09.08.2007 to 08.08.2008, per insurance cover note dated 09.08.2007, Annexure A-1. Vehicle was stated to have met with an accident on 21st April, 2008...
Oriental Bank of Commerce Rep by Its Chairman and Another Vs. P.S. Ram ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
Oral Order: (Gopalakrishna Tamada, President) This is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties 1 and 2 against the order of the District Consumer Forum-I, Hyderabad, dated 14.03.2013 in C.C.No.1048/2011, whereby the said Forum was pleased allow the complaint partly. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum. The complainant worked with erstwhile M/s. Global Trust Bank since 17,07.1994 and subsequently the said bank was amalgamated with the opposite parties i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce. Subsequent to the merger also, the complainant worked with the opposite parties bank and in the year 2005 he resigned to the bank and the same was accepted by the opposite parties bank. Despite the acceptance of his resignation, his retirement benefits such as Provident Fund, Gratuity, Leave Encashment, etc. were not settled till 10.09.2009. He was paid only in the month of September, 2009. Therefore, he approached the District For...
Kapoor Herbal Products Vs. Balaji Allianz General Insurance Company Lt ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This appeal is filed by the original complainant who is the proprietor of Kapoor Herbal Products, against the impugned judgment and order dtd. 30/09/2009 passed by the Dist.Consumer Forum, Aurangabad in CC.No.829/2008. The respondent herein is the original opponent. For better understanding the appellant is hereinafter termed as the œComplainant? and the respondent which is insurance company is hereinafter termed as the œOpponent Insurance Company?. 2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under :- That, the complainant Shri.Santosh Kapoor is the proprietor of the firm by name and style as œKappor Herbal Products?. That, this firm is engaged in the activity of manufacturing and trading of various herbal products within an outside country, which is situated at MIDC Chikalthana Aurangabad. It was submitted that the complainant had received order from M/s. Julian Greaves Ltd, a United Kindom Based Company for herbal products worth Rs.44...
M/S. Commercial Motors (Dehradun) Private Limited Vs. Veer Singh
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 20.06.2011 passed by the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal in consumer complaint No. 23 of 2010. By the order impugned, the District Forum has ex-parte allowed the consumer complaint against the appellant “ opposite party and directed the appellant to pay sum of Rs. 1,63,465/- to the respondent “ complainant under different heads within a period of two months, failing which the above amount was directed to carry interest @12% p.a. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is the registered owner of truck No. UA09 / 6034. In May, 2009, the engine of the truck went defective and a new engine was fitted in the vehicle on 28.05.2009. The guarantee of the new engine was upto 28.05.2010. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 85,000/- towards expenses of fitting of new engine. Inspite of new engine, the ...
Superintending Engineer and Others Vs. Jalindar and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
Uma S. Bora, Member: 1. Appeal No. 273/2008 is filed by Superintending Engineer M S E D Co. Ltd. and others against the judgment and order passed by District Forum, Osmanabad on 13.01.2008 while deciding consumer complaint No.264/2007. 2. Appeal No.291/2008 is filed by Jalindar Vitthal Kawale and others praying for enhancement of compensation granted by District Forum Osmanabad while allowing consumer complaint No.246/2007. Both these appeals are related to common subject matter we have therefore decided to dispose of these appeals by common judgment and order. 3. Facts giving rise to these appeals are as under: Complainant Shri. Jalinder, Shridhar and Murlidhar are real brothers. All the complainants are agriculturists and owners of land Gut No.217,218 and 222. In the season of 2006-07 all the complainants sowed sugarcane in 1 hector and 40-R area. On 05.03.2007 there was sparking on the electric line passing through the field of complainant. The circuit fuse on the transformer was no...
Prakash N. Kanchagar and Another Vs. M/S. D.S. Naik Associates
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. This consumer complaint filed on 22/03/2013 is being disposed off by this order. 2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose off this complaint. 3. OP No.1 is a Builder and OP No. 2 and 3 are the owners of the land of chalta no.14, P.T. sheet no.92 of Margao City Survey. Under an agreement dated 10/02/2003 styled as an agreement for development and sale with the said owners, the Builder, OP No.1, has carried out development upon the said property and has constructed a building known as œ Damodar Arcade?, Building `A and `B. 4. The Complainants by agreement for sale dated 16/12/2003 have purchased from the Builder flats identified as MF “ 1 and 2 in the said building and by addendum dated 26/01/2004 have purchased a garage/stilt parking in Building `B admeasuring about 12 sq.mts., and, the Complainants have been put in possession of the said flat and the said garage on or about 25/02/2005 and there is no dispute about it. 5. The Complainants...
i.C.i.C.i. Lombard, General Insurance Co. Ltd., Thorugh Its Legal Mana ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.4.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum Ahmednagar allowing consumer complaint No.24/2009 directing appellant/opponent insurance company to pay to the complainant amount of insurance Rs.1 lakh with interest @ 10% p.a. and further compensation of Rs.1200/- for causing mental agony etc. (For the sake of brevity appellant is hereinafter referred as opponent insurance company and respondent as complainant) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- Late Kailas Kadlag who was husband of complainant Vandana was agriculturist by profession. Government of Maharashtra had obtained insurance for agriculturists from opponent insurance company. It was under the Farmers Personal Accident Insurance Policy insuring the farmers of Rs.1 lakh each. 3. On 9.11.2005, insured Kailas died by falling in the bath room. After his death his widow complainant Vandana submitted insurance cla...
Bay India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai Vs. Ajay Kumar
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President (Oral): 1. This is an application filed by the applicant for reviewing the judgment and order dated 06.02.2014 passed by this Commission in First Appeal No. 213 of 2013; eBay India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Ajay Kumar. 2. The facts of the case are that the opposite party “ Sh. Ajay Kumar filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar against eBay India Pvt. Ltd., stating therein that he had purchased 4GB Sd card amounting to Rs. 132/- from eBay India Pvt. Ltd. According to the opposite party “ complainant, the card was not supplied to him and, therefore, he sent an e-mail to the company for refunding his amount. The company rejected the complainants request for refund of the amount. Hence the consumer complaint was filed. 3. The District Forum, Haridwar through judgment and order dated 26.06.2013, allowed the consumer complaint and awarded a sum of Rs. 23,135/- as compensation to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order, eBay India Pvt. L...
Rajesh Bansidhar Agarwal Vs. Brahma Bazaz Land Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
Usha S. Thakare, Judicial Member: 1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by Learned District Forum, Pune in consumer complaint No.168/2010 dated 25/11/2013, original complainant has preferred the present appeal. By the order under challenge, Learned District Forum was pleased to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant by holding that relationship between complainant and opponent is not that of consumer and service provider. 2. According to the complainant/appellant, he had entered into an agreement with opponent for purchasing land bearing plot No.38, admeasuring 1 acre from survey no. 277/19, 277/15 situated at village Warak, Tal. Mulshi, Dist. Pune. The total survey no. is admeasuring 91 acres. The opponent is a private limited company dealing in land development. On 14/01/1997 the said agreement was executed in favour of the complainant and opponent agreed for execution of sale deed of plot for Rs.1,60,000/-. On that day, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid by the com...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »