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.
Bhairu Prasad Vs. the Branch Manager
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
Salma Noor, Member: 1. This appeal by the complainant of the case No.999/2006 is directed against the order dated 12.4.2012 of the CDRF (North), Tis Hazari, Delhi whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed. 2. The appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. According to the appellant himself there is a delay of 210 days in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard Sh. Bhairu Prasad, Complainant present in person and Shri H.L. Verma, Counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 4. It is admitted by the applicant in its applications that there is a delay of 210 days in filing the appeal. The only reason given by the appellant/complainant delay of 210 days that appellant was busy in the marriage of his son. This reason does not provide any justified ground for condonation of such a long delay in filing the appeal. The Law of limitation calls for explanation for each day delay after expiry of period of limitation, an explan...
United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Through Its Divisional Office Vs. the M ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.3.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Osmanabad allowing consumer complaint No.261/2007 directing appellant/opponent No.2 insurance company to pay to the complainant/respondent No.2 insurance amount of Rs.1 lakh with 9% interest and further Rs.1000/- towards cost of the proceedings. (For the sake of brevity appellant is herein after referred as opponent insurance company, respondent No.2 as complainant, respondent No.1 as opponent bank) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- Late Yogesh who was the son of complainant Vibhishan died in motor accident on 30.12.2003. He was having motor-cycle bearing registration No.MH-25/E-1255. His motor-cycle was insured with opponent insurance company obtaining motor-cycle/scooter package policy covering risk of own as well as vehicle to the extent of Rs.1 lakh. The policy was in force for the period from 2.12.2003 to 01.12....
Shaikh Bashir Shaikh JainuddIn Vs. Manager, Ganraj Nagari Sahakari Ban ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Both these appeals impugn the judgment and order dated 16.2.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Beed partly allowing consumer complaint No.146/2007 directing opponent bank to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of income and Rs.5000/- more for causing mental agony etc. Complainant Shaikh Bashir filed appeal No.524/2008, whereas opponent bank filed appeal No.1070/2008. Therefore we have decided to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment. (For the sake of brevity complainant Shaikh Bashir who is respondent in appeal No.1070/2008 is herein after called as complainant and appellant bank in appeal No.1070/2008 who is respondent in appeal No.524/2008 is called as opponent bank) 2. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that:- On 15.4.1999, complainant borrowed loan of Rs.50,000/- from opponent bank mortgaging his land Gut No.130 admeasuring 1 and acre. Prior to that on 23.9.1997 complainant ha...
Bhairu Prasad Vs. the Branch Manager
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
Salma Noor, Member: 1. This appeal by the complainant of the case No.999/2006 is directed against the order dated 12.4.2012 of the CDRF (North), Tis Hazari, Delhi whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed. 2. The appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. According to the appellant himself there is a delay of 210 days in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard Sh. Bhairu Prasad, Complainant present in person and Shri H.L. Verma, Counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 4. It is admitted by the applicant in its applications that there is a delay of 210 days in filing the appeal. The only reason given by the appellant/complainant delay of 210 days that appellant was busy in the marriage of his son. This reason does not provide any justified ground for condonation of such a long delay in filing the appeal. The Law of limitation calls for explanation for each day delay after expiry of period of limitation, an explan...
Dodakula Dr. Vijaya Kumar Vs. C. Chandramma and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
Oral Order : (Gopala Krishna Tamada, President) 1) This appeal is directed against the orderdt.21.1.2013 in CC 104 of 2012 on the file of Dist. Forum, Mahabubnagar whereby the complaint filed by the respondent herein was allowed and the appellant and Op1 were jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 5 lakhs towards compensation and costs of Rs. 1,000/-. 2) Brief facts are as under: The complainant i.e., the respondent No. 1 who is the mother of the deceased C. Renuka filed the said complaint stating that her daughter developed ear pain and in that context, she was taken to the hospital run by Op1 where her daughter was advised to undergo minor surgery. Immediately, her daughter was taken into the Operation Theatre where she was administered anaesthesia by Op2 and thereafter she was operated on the nose instead of ear. Immediately, she developed complications, hence the complainant was advised to take the patient to Hyderabad for better treatment. In the process, the patient i.e., the ...
The New India Assurance Company Limited and Others Vs. Manvar Singh As ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 18.08.2009 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 355 of 2007, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellants “ opposite parties to pay sum of Rs.59,796/- to the respondent “ complainant together with interest @9% p.a. pendente lite and future and litigation expenses of Rs.1,500/-. However, the learned President of the District Forum vide his dissenting order of the even date, dismissed the consumer complaint. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is the registered owner of truck bearing registration No. UA-12-2282. The said truck is being driven by the complainant. Along with the complainant, Sh. Bhim Singh Bisht also remains in the truck as Assistant Driver. Both the said persons have driving licence in thei...
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mayavati Bharat Bagal and Othe ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
Usha Thakare, Judicial Member: Being aggrieved by the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur in consumer complaint no.461/2011, original opponent no.3/appellant/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has preferred the present appeal. Facts giving rise to this appeal in short are as under:- Complainant-Smt.Mayavati Bharat Bagal is a farmer and she resides at village Dasoor, Taluka- Malshiras, District Solapur. Her husband had taken insurance policy from the opponent no.3/present appellant. Present appellant is an insurance company. The State of Maharashtra had entered into an agreement with this Insurance Company for the farmers accident insurance policy for the area of Pune and Nasik. As per the said policy, the farmer who was injured or died will get benefit of the said policy. The said policy was taken as per the direction of the State Government dated 30/09/2009. Husband of the complainant died while he was driving motor cycle bearing no.MH-45-G 2963. On the da...
Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Kawardha Vs. Anantram Gupt ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.02.2013, passed District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.09/2012 whereby the complaint of the respondent / complainant, has been allowed. 2. The appellant/O.P. has preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 15.02.2013, passed by the District Forum and also filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant/O.P. on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay and have also perused the record of the District Forum. 4. In Revision Petition No.1616 of 2011 - National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shri P. Rangaswamy and anr., decided on 11.11.2013, Hon'ble National Commission held thus : "8. In Ram Lal and others Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed :- It is, how...
M/S. Global Finance Vs. Asha T. Kale and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
S.B. Sawarkar, Member: 1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Amravati in complaint case no. 208 of 2008 dated 26/11/2008, the appellant, (original opposite party No. 3) filed the present appeal. Vide impugned order the District Consumer Forum, Amravati, allowed complaint, and attributing deficiency of service and directed the OP No. 1 and 3 to pay Rs. 2,20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant (Now respondent no.1)as compensation and cost with interestover it @12% p.a. The Forum did not pass any order against original opposite party No. 2, the insurance company. 2. The original party No. 3 filed the present appeal against the impugned order, is now being called as appellant for brevity. The respondent No. 1 is original complainant, respondent No. 2 is original opposite party No. 1 and respondent No. 3 is the original opposite party No. 2 in the original complaint. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 in appeal purchased a four whee...
The New India Assurance Co; Ltd., Through Its Managing Director and An ...
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member: 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated August 29th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (for short District Forum), Panchkula, whereby complaint filed by M/s Ekta Poultries-complainant (respondent herein) seeking direction to the appellants-opposite parties to pay the benefits of insurance was accepted in the following terms:- œ12...we hereby allowed the complaint partly and direct the opposite parties as under: 1. To settle the claim of the complainant under the policies and pay Rs.5,63,388/- as assessed by surveyor vide its report (Annexure R1-2/D) dated 12/10/2011 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its recovery. 2. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment suffered by the complainant as well as cost of litigation.? 2. Respondent got its poultry farm insured with the appellants-opposite parties vide insurance polices (Annexure C-2 a...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »