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.
M/S. Guptasons Jewellers and Gems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Com ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
S.C. Jain, Member: 1) This complaint has been filed by Sh. Sachin Vijay Gupta on behalf of the complainant company which is a private limited company registered under the companys act 1956 and Sh. Sachin Vijay Gupta is one of the Directors of the company. The complainant company engaged in the business of selling gold and diamond jewelry. The complainant company obtained one jewelers block insurance policy from the OP Company and the OP company issued policy No. 231/2005 for the period 29.09.2004 to 23.09.2005 on receipt of insurance premium amount of Rs. 31,906/-. The insurance company contracted to indemnify for loss or damage to any property or part thereof relating stock and stock in trade, consisting of jewelry of gold, diamond and silver ornaments, articles, piece and precious stones of any short of kind whatsoever as well as cash and currency notes and/or other mercantile and material usual to conduct of the insureds business belonging to and/or held in trust or on commission fo...
T.A. Augustine and Others Vs. Gautham Hospital, Rep. Its Managing Dire ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
A. Radha : Member This appeal is preferred by the complainant on dismissal of the complaint by the Forum Below. The complainant filed C.C.No.310/07 before CDRF, Ernakulam claiming compensation for negligence on the part of opposite party. 2. While contesting the case the complainant was absent for several postings and the complaint happened to be dismissed for default. Thereafter the complainant filed petition to set-aside the exparte order which was again dismissed by the Forum Below relying on the Honble Apex Court decision. As the Forum does not have the power to set-aside the exparte order the complainant came up before this Commission in Appeal. 3. It is submitted by the Counsel for the Appellant that there is no wilful laches on the part of complainant for being absent on the day of posting of the case. It is also submitted that the counsel was held up in traffic block and was unable to reach the Forum in time. The complainant is having a serious case with regard to the medical n...
M/S. Guptasons Jewellers and Gems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Com ...
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
S.C. Jain, Member: 1) This complaint has been filed by Sh. Sachin Vijay Gupta on behalf of the complainant company which is a private limited company registered under the companys act 1956 and Sh. Sachin Vijay Gupta is one of the Directors of the company. The complainant company engaged in the business of selling gold and diamond jewelry. The complainant company obtained one jewelers block insurance policy from the OP Company and the OP company issued policy No. 231/2005 for the period 29.09.2004 to 23.09.2005 on receipt of insurance premium amount of Rs. 31,906/-. The insurance company contracted to indemnify for loss or damage to any property or part thereof relating stock and stock in trade, consisting of jewelry of gold, diamond and silver ornaments, articles, piece and precious stones of any short of kind whatsoever as well as cash and currency notes and/or other mercantile and material usual to conduct of the insureds business belonging to and/or held in trust or on commission fo...
Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Shailesh Kumar and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 31/12/2011 passed in Consumer Complaint bearing CC No. 546/2009 by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that the Opposite Party (for short O.P.) No.2 is the manufacturer of four wheeler and O.P. No.1 is its dealer. The complainant purchased a four wheeler namely Tata Sumo Grand Car for Rs. 6,82,923/- from the O.P. No.1 which is manufactured by the O.P. No.2. He purchased that car on 12/05/2008. The manufacturing defects were noticed in that car, within 15 days of purchasing it. They are described in detail in the complaint. Therefore, complainant took it for first time to O.P. No.1 for repairing on 29/05/2008. The O.P No. 1 tried to remove those effects. However, within one month thereafter again manufacturing defects were noticed in that vehicle, which are also described in the detail in...
M/S. Sld Enterprises Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) Having been aggrieved by the repudiation of the Insurance claim by Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. (in short ECGC), M/s SLD Enterprises-Complainant has filed this complaint for award of compensation, restoration of the policy and payment of litigation expenses etc. 2) The complainant in December 2007 submitted a proposal on prescribed format for issue of Shipments Comprehensive Risk Policy (SCR) with the OP. A policy bearing No. SCR0110011552 for a maximum liability of Rs. 3 Crores for the period 12.12.2007 to 31.12.2009 was issued on 08.01.2008 by OP in favour of Complainant (copy filed as annexure-D) before issuance of the said policy a premium of Rs. 1,10,833/- was charged by the OP. Complainant submitted applications for approval of credit limits in respect of foreign buyers within an overall limit of Rs. 3 Crore. The complainant sought credit limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- in respect of foreign buyers namely M/s Sai Creations NV Bel...
Kakarla Narasimha Rao Vs. C. Chenchappa Naidu and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
Oral Order: (S. Bhujanga Rao, Member) This appeal arose out of the order dt.20.05.2013 of the District Forum, Ranga Reddy Dist. at L.B.Nagar made in C.C.No.169/2011, whereunder, the District Forum dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant. The case of the appellant as per the complaint filed by him is that the appellant is the purchaser of Flat no.106 in M N Residency of Bachupally and is in possession of the same since 08.02.2010 i.e. the date of the registered sale deed bearing document no.1018/2010 executed by the respondents 1 and 2 the builders of the said apartment. As per the registered sale deed, the respondents have agreed and admitted to allot car parking area to the appellant in the cellar of the said M N Residency Apartments. On the same day i.e. 8.02.2010, the respondents had executed connecting supporting deed in favour of the appellant, for allotment of car parking. Even though the appellant had demanded several times, the respondents have neglected the ...
Hyundai Motor India Limited, Through Its Authorized Signatory and Anot ...
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. These appeals can be conveniently disposed off by this common order. F.A. No.03/2014 has been filed by OP No.1, and F.A. No.05/2014 has been filed by OP No.2, in CC. No. 31/12. OP No.1 is the manufacturer and OP No.2 is the dealer. 2. Some more facts are required to be stated to dispose off the appeals. 3. The Complainant purchased from OP No.2, the dealer, an i10 Car (automatic gears) on 22/02/2012 for a sum of Rs.5,03,062/- and registered the same under reg. no.GA-08K-0126. The car had power steering. 4. The Complainant found, after about 10 days, that the steering had a problem in that the steering wheel was not rotating smoothly and whenever the steering wheel was turned right or left, it would not come back to its normal original position. The Complainant, therefore, wrote a letter on 01/03/2012 complaining about the said defect. The Complainant then took the car to OP No.2, dealer, with the said complaint of hard steering on 02/03/2012 and again for the...
Delhi Development Authority Vs. Pradeep Gambhir and Another
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
S.C. Jain, Member: 1) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi dt. 07.08.2010 passed in Complaint Case No. 226/2010, whereby District Forum has directed the appellant to restore the lease of property bearing Plot No. 26, Motia Khan Dump Scheme New Delhi, in the name of the complainant/respondent-1 and quashed the cancellation order dt. 14.10.1982 and District Forum, further directed the appellant to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and sheer suffering inclusive of litigation charges. 2) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant have filed a complaint before the District Forum submitting therein that Sh. Yog Raj and Sh. Anant Ram were allotted plot No. 26, Motia Khan Dump Scheme New Delhi by the DDA and the lease deed was executed on 17.03.1973 in their favour by DDA. The said plot was subsequently sold by the allottees...
Dr. Lalit Kapur Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Another
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) This appeal has been filed against the order dt. 16.12.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Qutub Institutional Area, Udyog Sadan, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 519/2007, Lalit Kapoor V/s DDA and Ors. 2) Brief facts relating to this appeal are that the appellant/complainant constructed a House on Plot No. 53, Block-B, Pocket-10, Sector 13, Dwarka, New Delhi. He received occupancy certificate from DDA on 09.08.2004 and conveyance deed was registered on 09.02.2005. The area was developed by the DDA. DDA had deposited processing fee, but electrification was not done by OP-2 i.e. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. New Delhi. Complainant has temporary connection in his house. He tried his level best to get permanent electric connection but could not succeed and therefore he was forced to keep the premises vacant/unoccupied. He therefore filed a consumer complaint claiming a compensation of Rs. 10 Lac from the respondents/OPs. 3) The comp...
S. Krishnamoorthi Vs. Hdfc Bank, Represented by Its Manager
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
(The Appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain relief. The District Forum rejected the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant / complainant filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CCSR.No.210/2012, dated 08.04.2013.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member The complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Chengalpattu which was assigned as CCSR.No.210/2012 and it was placed before us by the registry for considering the maintainability of the complaint. The complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the opposite party regarding the hire purchase loan availed by the complainant through the bank for the purchase of two wheeler from one Sharadha Motors, Kancheepuram since all the post dated cheques issued for EMIs were encashed by the bank and subsequently the opposite party demanded payment of dues for t...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »