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.
Harpinder Pal Singh Vs. Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant had purchased a BMW Model No.D520 for Rs.37,60,000/- bearing Registration No.CH-01-AP-7871 on 25.05.2012. It was stated that on the night intervening 10.05.2013, and 11.05.2013 at about 12.30 A.M., the complainant, after having dinner in a hotel in Sector 10, Chandigarh, was going towards Sector 70, Mohali to drop his friend, at his relatives residence, and when he reached near the Water Works, Sector 52, Chandigarh, suddenly a street dog came in front of the vehicle. It was further stated that in order to save the dog, the complainant applied the brake and simultaneously steered the vehicle and when he lost control over the same, as a result whereof, it slipped, hit against the dividing pavement and grill and got overturned. It was further stated that all the airbags opened and the vehicle was completely damaged. It was further stated that, in the said accident, the complainant and his friend had a narrow escape of any ...
K.B. Prithviram Vs. Pepsico India Holdings Ltd, President / Executive ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The complaint filed under Section 12 and 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. The complainant purchased 1.5 litres bottle of Pepsi from Ajantha Bakery, Periyar Nagar, Chennai -82 on 29.5.2004 with batch No. 291 dated 5.5.2004 for his children and when the complainant look for the details of manufacture which are not available and the children when consuming little by little they experienced nauseating feeling and vomitted immediately and thereby on 31.5.2004 the complainant sent a representation to the Chief Executive of Pepsi India, Holdings Private Limited, Teppadabegur Neelamangala, Bangalore and also sent a representation on 14.6.2004, 25.6.2004 and 1.7.2004 for which a reply was received on 30.6.2004 denying the allegations the bottle did not contain the necessary details as per the conditions of prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954. The complainant sent a letter dated 3.7.2004 to the Pepsi Board of Directors, Pepsico Incorporation (P...
Dlf Southern Homes Pvt.Ltd, Rep.by Its General Manager (Marketing), â ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
(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.18/2010, dated 08.04.2011. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 11.02.2014, 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 party is the appellant. 2. The complainant on the basis of the advertisement in the newspaper applied for purchase of apartment from the opposite party of their Garden City DLF OMR at Thazhambur village, Chengalpet Taluk for which he had paid Rs.8,48,512.50 in two payments as on 14.01.2008 and 7.5.2008. But the opposite party provisionally allotted an apartment No.4 in Tower No...
M/S. Suchir India Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Y. Lakshmi
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) The opposite parties are the appellants and this appeal is directed against the orders in C.CNo.835/2010 on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad dated 06-3-2013 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent herein was allowed and the opposite parties/appellants were directed to return the entire sale consideration that has been paid by the respondent with interest at 18% p.a. etc., The brief facts that led to the filing of the complaint are as under: The appellants are developers and builders and on the basis of their attractive colourful brochures etc., the complainant/respondent being attracted purchased a plot admeasuring 200 sq. yds. by paying an initial amount of Rs.10,500/- towards admission fee. Thereafter she became a member of the scheme introduced by the opposite parties and thus parted a total sum of Rs.40,000/- towards plot allotment charges, Rs.5,30,000/- towards the cost of the plot and a further sum of Rs.10,0...
Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
Nawab Singh, President (Oral): 1. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited is in appeal against the order dated November 5th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Jhajjar, whereby Rajesh Kumar-complainant (respondent herein) was granted benefits of insurance in respect of his vehicle which was stolen during the subsistence of the insurance policy. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- œit is observed that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Therefore, it is directed that the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant on account of theft of his vehicle along with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of theft i.e. 9.12.2010 till actual realization of final payment. The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.2,000/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the pa...
M/S. Elder Farm Vs. H.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limi ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 17.08.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby its complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which it filed against the respondent, has been dismissed. 2. Respondent No.2, with a view to encouraging and promoting commercial horticulture, introduced a scheme, under which the persons covered by the scheme were to be given subsidy of 25% on the loan amount, in case they raised loans from certain named Agencies, for promotion of commercial horticulture. Appellant submitted a project sometime in the year 1999, that was approved by respondent No.2 and its functionaries, i.e. respondents No.3 and 4. Project was submitted to respondent No.1-H.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, which sanctioned a loan of Rs.35.00 lacs. A Sum of Rs.28.00 lacs, was released in favour of the appellant by respondents No.2 to 4. By...
Bajaj Life Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Suru Rohini
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
Oral Order : (Gopala Krishna Tamada, President) 1) M/s. Bajaj Life Insurance Company Ltd., is the appellant and this appeal is filed challenging the order dt. 28.1.2013 in CC 51 of 2012 on the file of Dist. Forum, Vizianagaram whereby the complaint filed by the respondent herein was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 3 lakhs with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of death of the deceased till the date of payment together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 2,000/-. 2) It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that for obvious reasons they could not contest the matter, and in those circumstances, subsequent to pronouncement of orders, it came to light that the husband of the respondent herein had undergone treatment at Nizams Instituteof Medical Sciences(NIMS) prior to obtaining of the policy, and in those circumstances, the respondents husband is not entitled to any amount under the said policy. 3) From a perusal of the order, it is ...
Narayan Ch. Banik Vs. Jiban Kr. Acharjee
Court: Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Agartala
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
S. Baidya, J. 1. This revision is filed by the petitioner under section 17(1)(b) of the C.P.Act, 1986 on 16.08.2013 (converted to a revision case on 10.03.2014) challenging the order dated 17.07.2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum in case No.C.C-56/2013 whereby the Ld. District Forum was pleased to fix the complaint case for exparte hearing. 2. It has been narrated in the application that the respondent-complainant filed a complaint against the present petitioner-O.P. and the said complaint has been registered as C.C-56/2013 and accordingly Summons was issued upon the petitioner-O.P fixing the first day on 17.07.2013 for service return of Summons and written objection. It has also been alleged that the petitioner-O.P. received the said Summons, but due to his illness he could not appear before the Ld. District Forum on 17.07.2013, and on 19.07.2013 the petitioner-O.P. learnt that the Ld. District Forum was pleased to fix the said complaint case on 06.08.2013 for exparte hearing again...
M/S. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Bhawesh Narula
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 27.05.2011 passed by the District Forum, Nainital in consumer complaint No. 116 of 2010. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellants “ opposite parties to pay, jointly or severally, to the respondent “ complainant the cost of Skoda Fabia 1.4 PDTDI (Classic) Diesel car with accessories amounting to Rs.6,84,950/-, together with interest @6% p.a. pendente lite and future and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses. It was also directed that on the date of compliance of the order, the respondent shall submit the ownership documents of the vehicle / letter of subrogation with the appellants. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that on 14.10.2009, the complainant had purchased Skoda Fabia 1.4 PDTDI (Classic) Diesel car from the opposite party ...
Sau. Malti Prakash Ajmire and Others Vs. Krushna and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
Jayshree Yengal, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal challenges the order dated 26/12/2007, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Amravati, partly allowing the Consumer complaint bearing no. 125 of 2005, thereby directing the OP/appellant herein to return the money invested by the complainant/respondent herein with directions and further granting compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards economic, physical and mental harassment and on failure to pay compensation the said amount would be charged with interest at the rate of 8 percent p.a. there on. 2. Appellant nos. 1 to 4 be referred as OP no. 2 to 5 and respondent no. 1 be referred as complainant and respondent no. 2 be referred as OP no. 1 for the sake of brevity. 3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under. "OP no. 1 Shri Rajesh Sarode is Director of a company named and styled as JMD Group of Companies having its Head Office at Nashik. OP No. 2 to 5 are its franchise holder. The OP No. 1 floated a scheme in pursuance to which pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »