Scdrc Court March 2014 Judgments
Ashok Kumar Vs. Union Territory and Another
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal, under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as the Act only), is directed against the order dated 12.07.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, Criminal Petition No.05 of 2010, in the Consumer Complaint, bearing No.669 of 2008, was allowed, and Ashok Kumar, appellant/Opposite Party No.3, as also Capt. Kanwar Sat Pal Singh, Opposite Party No.5, were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of two years, and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. It was also directed that, in default of payment of fine, by Ashok Kumar, appellant/Opposite Party No.3, as also Capt. Kanwar Sat Pal Singh, Opposite Party No.5, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of six months. 2. The complainant (now respondent No.2), filed the Consumer Complaint, bearing No.669 of 2008, on the averments,...
Tag this Judgment!Kabita Gupta, Hooghly Vs. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution C ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
J. Bag, LD. Member The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 20.12.13 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly, in Consumer Complaint Case No. 52 of 2013 , whereby the complaint was dismissed on contest without cost. The case of the Complainant / Appellant herein was as follows: The Complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.200/- under receipt No. 1471 generated on 02.12.2011 for new electric connection in her residence. After 15 days the Complainant communicated with the office of the OP and the OP promised to make enquiry within 15 days. Even in several months thereafter no action was taken. Lawyers notice was sent on 18.03.13, but to no effect. Accordingly, a complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum with prayer for direction upon the OP to give new electric connection in the residence of the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for deficiency in service on the part of the OP in not providing electric connection. The complai...
Tag this Judgment!The Divisional Manager, M/S. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Anoth ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
Common Judgment: P.Q. Barkath Ali : President All these appeals are disposed of by a common order. Appeal No.37/12 is filed by the 4th opposite party in CC.207/10 on the file of CDRF, Idukki challenging the order of the Forum dated, March 28, 2011. Appeal No.50/12 is filed by the first opposite party, United India Insurance Company challenging the same order. Appeal No.38/12 is filed by the 4th opposite party, National Insurance Company challenging the order of the Forum in CC.208/10 of CDRF, Idukki dated, March 28, 2011. Appeal No.51/12 is filed by the first opposite party challenging the same order of the Forum. As opposite parties in these appeals are the same and as common questions are involved all these appeals are disposed of by a common order. 2. The case of the complainants in both the complaints as testified by them as PW1 and PW3 respectively before the Forum in brief is this:- The complainant in CC.207/10, Sri.N.P.Chacko, PW1 is the owner of the building No.K/II-199 of Kari...
Tag this Judgment!The Managing Director, Kosamattom Finance Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.K. Gireesh K ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
Santhamma Thomas : Member This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the order under challenge is dated 20/04/2013 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad in CC No.18/2013 by the complaint. 2. On 03/12/2011 the Respondent (Complainant in the Lower Forum) had taken loan by pledging gold with the Appellants (opposite parties in the Lower Forum) for Rs.1,49,000/- under loan A/c No.665 and Rs.21,600/- under loan A/c No.666. The interest rates were fixed at 18% per annuam for a period till 01/12/2013. The respondent was issued a notice on 24/12/2012 to repay the amount or pay interest and/or the appellant will auction the said gold for recovering their amount with interest and other charges. On approaching the appellants, respondent found that he will have to pay 36% in order to close his loan and get the gold back. Respondent approached the Circle Inspector of Police, Nenmara and made a complaint. After summoning the Appellan...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Buildmate Builders Pvt. Limited Vs. E.P. Parameswarn Bhattathirip ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-31-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC.144/12 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated, December 17, 2012 directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.1,54,876/- being the cost of the balance work to be done in the house of the complainant with interest and Rs.12,000/- being the repair charge of the doors of the building of the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- Opposite party is a building contractor. Complainant entrusted with the opposite party the construction of 890 sq.ft.in the first floor of the complainants house by agreement dated, January 01, 2011. The rate fixed was Rs.1,200/- per sq.ft. and the agreement was to complete the construction within 9 months. As on December 30, 2011 complainant paid Rs.9,60,368/- to the opposite party. But the opposite party abandoned the wor...
Tag this Judgment!The Manager, J and K Bank Private Limited Vs. Veena Kumari
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-29-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it, by respondent-Veena Kumari, has been allowed and a direction given to it (the appellant) to release the balance amount of loan, within thirty days of the passing of the impugned order and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost. 2. Respondent-Veena Kumari, filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that she had been sanctioned a loan of Rs.24.50 lacs for construction of house by the appellant and that out of the sanctioned loan amount, only a sum of Rs.16.00 lacs had been released and when after utilizing the aforesaid amount of Rs.16.00 lacs, she approached the appellant to release the remaining amount of money, she was informed that a sum of Rs.3.50 lacs, ...
Tag this Judgment!Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Through Ju ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This Revision Petition is directed against interim order dtd.05.03.2013 passed in consumer complaint No.CC/12/65 by District Consumer Forum, Yavatmal by which the interim application filed by the original complainant, who is respondent herein, has been granted. 2. Facts in brief giving rise to present Revision Petition are that the respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before District Consumer Forum, Yavatmal against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 herein, who are original opposite party (for short œthe O.P.?) Nos.1 and 2. The respondent herein in that complaint prayed that direction be given to the petitioner herein to restore electric supply of his canteen and Pan Shop, illegally disconnected by the petitioners and to direct them to pay him compensation of Rs.9.50 Lacs due to loss caused to him due to disconnection of his electric supply. He also claimed Rs.30,000/- from the petitioners herein towards...
Tag this Judgment!Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Another Vs. K.P. Zakkir HussaIn an ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President Both there appeals arise out of an order of CDRF, Palakkad in CC.No. 47/2012 dated July 16th 2012. Appeal No: 806/2012 is filed by the complainant. Appeal No. 711/2012 is filed by the opposite parties. 2. The case of the complainant as stated in the complaint before the forum in brief is this: Complainant has insured his TMS Digital Lab with the opposite parties Insurance Company for the period from 23.06.2010 to 22.06.2011. The machine had a break down on April 11, 2011 and the unit was damaged. The price of the new laser unit is Rs. 14 lakhs and cost of the re-conditioned unit is Rs. 4,78,125/-. As per the terms and conditions of the policy the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant with the price of the new unit. As the cost of the re-conditioned unit is Rs. 4,78,125, the complainant claimed that amount from the opposite parties . But the opposite parties sanctioned only Rs. 1,95,000. Therefore the complainant filed the complaint claim...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Represented by Its Regional Man ...
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
R. Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, Member 1. The opposite party-insurance company is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum-II Visakhapatnam passed on 09-8-2013 in C.C.No.306 of 2012. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the son of the respondent during his lifetime obtained insurance policy bearing number 16579146 and the insurance policy was valid for a period of 10 years commencing from 15-3-2010. The respondents son died on 03-6-2010 and after the death of her son, the respondent submitted the claim along with necessary documents to the appellant-insurance company which repudiated the claim on 30-7-2011 on the ground that the respondents son suppressed the fact relating to his illness as to renal failure at the time of submission of proposal. 3. The appellant-insurance company was set exparte. 4. The respondent filed her affidavit and the documents, ExA1 to A8. 5. The District Forum allowed the complaint on the premise of the appellants failure to i...
Tag this Judgment!Hdfc Standard Life, Kolkata Vs. Dilip Kumar Mukherjee
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
J. Bag, ld. Member. The present appeal is directed against the Order of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit II, dated 21.10.2013, in CC No. 251 of 2012, whereby, Ld. Forum below allowed the complaint with cost and compensation against the OPs. The complaint case , in brief, was as follows: The Complainant purchased an HDFC Standard Life Policy bearing No. 12333675. The annual premium of the policy was Rs.1,50,000/- with a guaranteed maturity value of Rs.12,79,953/- . After payment of two premiums each of Rs.1,50,000/- and upon receipt of the statement of September 2009 the Complainant, out of disappointment and distress, wanted to reduce the amount of premium and was allowed to do so for Rs. 40,000/- p.a. The guaranteed maturity value was reduced to Rs. 4,74,146/- ( Sum assured)+ Rs.73,554/- (Bonus) i.e, Rs. 5,77,000/- against total payment of Rs. 6,20,000/- ( Rs. !,50,000/-X 2+ Rs. 40,000/- ). The Complainant lost confidence on the insurer and requested f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »