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.
Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Balraj Singh
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 09.04.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 210 of 2010, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 5,14,700/- to the respondent “ complainant; Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses, within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. It was also directed that in case the above amount is not paid within a period of 30 days, then the respondent shall also be entitled to interest @9% p.a. on the above amount from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant was the registered owner of truck No. RJ-13GA-0096. The said truck was insured with the appellant “ HDFC ERGO General Insurance...
Fiit Jee, Rep.by Its Chairman and Another Vs. S.Balvignesh, Rep by His ...
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 parties praying certain relief. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellants / opposite parties filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.121/2009, dated 01.03.2011. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 14.02.2014, 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 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The complainant joined the pinnacle course with the 2nd opposite party institution for the purpose of IIT course by paying Rs.98,175/- as fees on 15.4.2008 and discontinued the same on 31.5.2008 due to his illness and not in a position to continue the course because of home sick and depression of mental condition and thereby he had requested...
Dr. S. Rajanikanth and Others Vs. S. Abdul Khadeer and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Hence appellants / opposite parties prefer an appeal in F.A.No.184/2007, F.A.No.541/2007 and F.A.No.544/2007 praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.191/2003, dated 12.01.2007. These appeals coming before us for hearing finally on 05.02.2014, 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 complainant S.Abdul Khadeer has come forward with the complaint against the opposite parties 1 to 3 namely Dr.A.Ahmed Ali, Dr.S.Rajanikanth, and Mehtas Nursing Home respectively alleging negligence and deficiency in service. 2. At the outset, it should be pointed out here that initially this complaint was filed by the complainant before the Honble State Consume...
Assistant Secretary, Electricity Department, Thrissur Corporation and ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in OP.408/03 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order of the Forum dated, May 31, 2012. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint and as testified by him PW1 before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainant is the proprietor of School or Arts, Thrissur. He has electric connection with consumer No.880. Respondents are Thrissur Corporation. Respondents issued a bill dated, April 01, 2003 to pay Rs.23,798/- as arrears of electricity charges up to January 2001. Earlier, the respondents issued a bill dated, October 24, 2000 for Rs.40,190/- for the period up to September 2000. Challenging that bill complainant filed OP.1187/2000 before the Forum. The Forum by order dated, September 27, 2001 directed the respondents to test the current meter and refix the current charge. But without complying that order respondents issued present bill E...
Vivek Diwan (Director Abhiyan Travels and Tours (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
Salma Noor, Member: 1. In a complaint case bearing No.C-186/2010 State vs. Shri Abhiyan Travels and Tours (I) Pvt. Ltd. filed before District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi, 4.1.2012 was fixed for appearance of the OP whenthe OP did not appear and the Forum ordered to proceed ex-parte against the OP. Thereafter restoration application filed by the OP was also dismissed vide order dated 3.7.2012 as the Forum had no jurisdiction to recall its own order. 2. That is what brings the Appellant/OP in appeal before this Commission for setting aside the said ex-parte order. 3. We have heard Shri Niranjan, Counsel for the Appellant in this appeal at the admission stage as there is no need to hear the respondent. 4. The version of the appellant OP for his non appearance on 4.1.2012 is that the counsel who was representing his case before the Forum was out of station on that day and that his how the default occurred. There is no plausible reason to disbelieve or not to ...
The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. K.S.D.J. Durai ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
(The Appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant / 1st Respondent filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.237/2008, dated 12.05.2011._ A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member The 1st opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant, his wife and his brothers and their wives took mediclaim policy for various sums from the opposite party. The complainant and his family members have renewed their policies year by year. The complainant and his wife submitted application form for the policies for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively to the 1st opposite party through the 2nd opposite party. The premium for the complainants policy was Rs.1344/- and his wifes premium was Rs.691/-. The complainant took the policy originally from M/s.Oriental insurance Company Limited, Chennai and regular...
Vincent Anty Vs. M/S. M.B. Kirloskar Oil Engine Limited, Through: Mana ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties for seeking direction to the opposite parties (a) to provide new J.C.B. Machine with original bill (b) to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and for mental agony and to grant any other relief, which this Commission deems fit and just. 2. Brief facts of the complaint as per the complainant are : (1) that the O.P.No.1 is engaged in business of manufacturing engine and O.P.No.2 is engaged in business of manufacturing body and machine and O.P.No.3 is dealer of O.P.No.1 and 2 at Raipur from whom the complainant purchased J.C.B. Machine. The complainant purchased J.C.B. Machine J.S.80 for self employment for earning livelihood of himself and his family with the help of finance from O.P.No.3 and which is the only source of livelihood of the complainant and his family. The complainant purchased th...
Kanta Sharma Vs. Post Master Central (Pandt) Circle Shimla, H.P. and O ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 22.02.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby her complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which she filed against the respondents, has been dismissed. 2. Appellant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the respondents, pleading following cause of action. Appellant had purchased Kisan Vikas Patras in the year 2000 and the total amount invested by her was to the tune of Rs.1.00 lac. On maturity of the Vikas Patras, after a period of six-and-a-half years, a sum of Rs.2.00 lacs was to be paid to her, in the month of September, 2006. Appellant lost the original Vikas Patras and approached respondent No.3, the Post Master of Post Office Jwalamukhi, from whom the certificates had been purchased, to issue duplicate Vikas Patras. She was required to complete certain formalities. She was also require...
Shaik Imam Saheb Vs. M/S. K. F. Biotech (P) Ltd, Bangalore, Rep. by It ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
GopalaKrishna Tamada, President 1. Complainant is the appellant and he approached this Commission with the present Appeal questioning the order dated 01.04.2011 in CC 117/2010 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Kadapa Y.S. R. District, whereby, the District Forum has awarded only an amount of Rs.45,500/- as against the claim amount of Rs.17,88,570/-. 2. The case, in brief, as per the complaint filed by the appellant herein is that he owns an extent of Ac.3.00 cents of land in Survey No. 569 and his son by name Shaik Hidayathula owns an extent of Ac.3.40 cents in Survey No. 890 in Vemula Village, Kadapa District. On the advice of the Marketing Executive of OP.1, he ordered for 6000 Grand Naine ( G.9) tissue Banana plants @ Rs.7.50 ps per plant and paid an advance amount of Rs.12,000/-. Subsequently, after receipt of entire plants, he paid the balance sale consideration also. Thereafter, he incurred huge expenditure for plantation of Banana with the said seeds, but, however, it ...
The Director, M/S. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. and Another ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
(The Respondent is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellants / opposite parties filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.67/2010, dated 15.10.2010.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The complainant purchased Maruti Omni Car TN 37 AZ 0572 on 11.4.2009 by obtaining hire purchase loan from the 2nd opposite party for a loan of Rs.1,60,000/- payable in 32 instalments and since there was default in payment the opposite parties seized the vehicle from the complainant and thereby the complainant filed this consumer complaint claiming for handing over the car and to pay Rs.3,50,000/-as compensation for deficiency of service, mental agony and for costs. 3. The opposite parties denied the allegations and contended that sine the complainant being an chronic defaulter a...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »