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.
Divisional Controller Vs. Kazi Hamid Ali and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
S.B. Sawarkar, Member: 1. The present appeal is filed by the original O.P. No.1 now appellant (for brevity called as appellant) against the order of the District Consumer Forum, Akola. The District Consumer Forum, Akola by their order in CC No. 113/2006 dated 12/12/2006 allowed the complaint of the complainant now respondent No.1 against the appellant and respondent No.2. The Forum directed appellant to regularize the pension of the complainant and to pay him compensation of Rs.25,000/- for depriving him of the benefits of his pension. The Forum also directed the appellant- Divisional Controller, to recover the said amount of compensation within 30 days, from Shri Arjun Dabhade, the Divisional Controller by holding him personally responsible. The Forum also directed the respondent No.2 to provide the arrears of pension from 1/07/2004 at the rate of Rs. 455/- with interest at the rate of 18% till its payments to the respondent No.1 and also to pay Rs.500/- per day to him, if the said am...
Dr. I. D. Kalwani Vs. T.N. Dubey and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
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 a direction for providing Rs.35,000/- (Rs. Thirty Five Thousand only) taken for service charges and Rs.25,75,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Lakhs and Seventy Five Thousand only) taken towards court fees and to direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.3,51,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs and Fifty One thousand only) towards compensation for maintenance of his life, and Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to disgrace the complainant in the Society and also seeking interest 12% p.a. on the amount of Rs.25,75,000/- and Rs.35,000/-. 2. Brief facts of the complaint are that : the complainant is a doctor by profession as well as he is a partner in the partnership firm M/s Shivam Builders and Developers (P.) Ltd. The Opposite Parties are husband and wife and are Advocates by profession. In the month of September, 2008, all of a sudden, the ...
Swapna Roy, Paschim Medinipore Vs. Supriya Pratihar, Medinipur and Oth ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
Mridula Roy, Member. The instant appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 07.05.2012 passed by Ld. District Forum, Paschim Medinipur in Complaint Case No. 19/2010 dismissing the same on contest without cost. Being aggrieved by that order the Complainant has preferred the instant appeal. In her petition of complaint the Complainant contended that she intended to purchase a flat having an area of 820 sq. ft. at a consideration of Rs.8,20,000/- and an agreement was executed to that effect on 28.09.2005 by and between the Complainant and the O.P. No. 3 i.e. the developer who was empowered by the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the landowners to develop the premises.. The Complainant further contended that subsequently it was agreed by the parties that the Complainant would pay Rs.9,20,000/- towards consideration in total but in reality the Complainant had to pay Rs.10,33,917/- under pressure exerted by the O.P. No. 3. Accordingly, the Complainant on several occasions asked the O.P. ...
Rajendra Badrinarayan Panchariya Vs. the Branch Manager, I.C.i.C.i. Ba ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.4.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Dhule dismissing complaint case No.422/2007. (For the sake of brevity appellant is hereinafter referred as complainant and respondent as opponent) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- On 10.10.2005, complainant Shri.Rajendra has purchased the Indica car from opponent No.4 dealer by availing finance of Rs.3 lakhs from opponent No.1 ICICI bank. Opponent No.5 Tata Motors Ltd. had floated the scheme for giving discount of Rs.5000/- to the prospective purchaser of Indica car. Complainant had agreed to repay the amount to the opponent No.1 bank by 36 monthly equal instalment of Rs.9200/-. It is alleged that though the opponent No.1 bank sanctioned loan of Rs.3 lakhs it disbursed loan amount by retaining discount amount of Rs.5000/-. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent No.1 bank, complainant has f...
Anil Khanna Vs. M/S. Fnp Events and Weddings Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) Complainant Sh. Anil Khanna has filed this complaint against the OP for return of Rs.8,01,000/- received from the complainant by the respondent for providing agreed services but committed gross deficiency of service, compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for mental agony, pain and harassment etc. and litigation cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. 2) The marriage ceremony of complainants daughter was scheduled to be solemnized on 06.05.2011 following which the complainant decided to engage the services of respondent company which represented to have immense market reputation in providing works of painting, props, accessories, floral, fabric and linen and other related works including generators and lighting. The respondent promised to make various wedding functions such as Bhajan Sandhya (on 29.04.2011), Sagan (on 04.05.2011) Mehndi/Ladies Sangeet (on 05.05.2011) and finally wedding ceremony on 06.05.2011, a resounding success and memorable. Accordingly Mr. Vikas Gututi...
Lakshman Chandra Dey, Kolkata Vs. Manager Uco Bank, Kolkata and Others
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
The case of the Complainant/Appellant, in short is that he had a bank account with the UCO Bank, S. N. Banerjee Road Branch. On 09/07/09 he issued a cheque for Rs.6,452.32 in favour of Standard Chartered Bank which was presented to the OP Bank after 10.30 a.m. On 13/07/09 the Complainant deposited the sum of Rs.6.530/- in cash after opening of the bank transaction and on the same date the cheque was presented and the OP Bank dishonoured it on the ground of insufficiency of fund. It has been alleged that the members of staff of the Bank misbehaved with the customers including the Complainant. For the said reason, the complaint was filed before the Learned District Forum. The Appellant/Complainant in person has submitted that the cheque was issued on 09/07/09 and when it was presented on 13/07/09 there was sufficient fund, in as much as, on 13/07/09 after 10 a.m. the Complainant deposited the sum of Rs.6,530/- in cash. It is contended that the cheque was wrongly dishonoured on the g...
Narendra Singh Rajput Vs. Jagendra Kumar and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.02.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum"), in Complaint Case No.39/2010. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the appellant / complainant and directed the appellant/complainant to pay the remaining amount to the respondent no.1 for the extra work done in addition to the agreement executed between the parties, within a month and the respondent no.1 will also complete the remaining construction work within two month and will receive the last installment after receiving the amount for the extra work done by him. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the appellant/complainant before the District Forum are that : an agreement was executed between the appellant/complainant and respondents/OPs for construction of the house of the appellant/complainant. The appellant/complainant averred ...
Satyawan Punia Vs. Manager, Tata Motor Finance and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.05.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum"), in Execution Case No.07/2012. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, has dismissed the application filed by the appellant/complainant that there is no need to provide further opportunity to the appellant/complainant. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are : that the appellant/complainant had purchased a Truck bearing registration No.HR-46/D-6441 after obtaining finance from Tata Finance Limited. As the appellant/complainant failed to pay certain instalments, the vehicle was repossessed by the financer from Village Patrapali (Jindal), Raigarh when it was parked at the premises of OP-3 Anand Motors, Dhimrapur Chowk, Raigarh. Thereafter financer issued notice to the complainant dated 19.4.2005 for paying sum of Rs.74,865/-. The complainant deposited Rs.98,000/- on 7.7.200...
Tulsidas Karmakar Proprietor of M/S. Shukla Engineering Works Resident ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President. This order relates to hearing on the petition for condonation of delay of 309 days in filing this appeal. It has been stated in the petition for condonation of delay that the judgment was delivered ex parte on 10/05/12. The Appellant was suddenly attacked with acute arthritis from 02/01/12 to 15/01/13 and, as such, could not file the additional W.V. nor could file the evidence-in-chief before the Learned District Forum. It has been contended by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the delay was not intentional. The Complainant has filed a xerox copy of medical certificate towards his alleged illness. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent opposed the petition for condonation of delay. It has been submitted that the notice was duly served upon the Appellant.We have heard the submission made by both sides and examined the materials on record. The Learned District Forum in the impugned judgment observed that the OP entered appearance and filed W.V. ...
Perfect Ply-n-wood, Through Its Proprietor Vs. Paresh C. Parekh
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member: [1] This appeal filed by the Appellant/original Opponent “ M/s. Perfect Ply-N-Wood (hereinafter referred to as the Opponent for the sake of brevity) takes an exception to an order dated 04/02/2012 passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Complaint No.237 of 2007, Mr. Paresh C. Parekh Vs. M/s. Perfect Ply-N-Wood. [2] The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:- The Respondent/original Complainant “ Mr. Paresh C. Parekh (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant for the sake of brevity) was to have furniture for his house which is situated in the vicinity of Gorai creek. Hence, he wanted furniture which is not affected by humidity and moisture. The Opponent, who is a dealer in plywood and doing the business in the name and style as Perfect Ply-N-Wood, had recommended to the Complainant to use the marine orchid plywood. Accordingly, the Complainant purchased marine orchid plywood and paid ...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »