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.
The Manager Hdfc Bank Cards Division Hdfc Bank Ltd. Vs. Dr. Ashok Kuma ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
Salma Noor, Member: 1. In a complaint case bearing No.588/13 Dr. Ashok Kumar vs. HDFC Bank Cards Division filed before District Forum(East) Saini Enclave, Delhi. 22.01.2014 was fixed for the appellant/OP1 for filing WS, which he failed to file and the District Forum closed the opportunity of filing the WS of appellant/OP1. 2. That is what brings the Appellant/OP1 in appeal before this Commission for setting aside the said ex-parte order. 3. We have heard Shri Rohit Nagpal, Counsel for the Appellant/OP1 in this appeal at the admission stage as there is no need to hear the respondent. 4. The version of the appellant/OP1 for not filing the WS on 22.1.14 is that father of the appellant counsel was suffering from a chronic disease and he was in a critical condition, so the counsel Shri Sumit Aggarwal went to Siliguri to attend him that was the reason he could not file the WS. 5. There is no plausible reason to disbelieve or not to rely and act upon this version of the appellant. Besides, it...
Shushila Purushottam Modak Vs. Executive Engineer Maharashtra State El ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
Uma Bora,Presiding Member: 1. Smt.Shushila Purushottam Modak Secretary of the Church of the Lamb, Ahmednagar appellant herein original complainant preferred this appeal against judgment and order passed by the Dist. Forum, Ahmednagar on 15/02/2008 dismissing the complaint case No. 453/2007. 2. Brief facts arising in the present appeal are as under :- Complainant is a Secretary of the Church of Lamb and for the said Church electric connection had obtained on 15/06/1996 consumer number was 162011114393. Since the date of connection of electricity said Church was using the electricity but bills for electricity charges were not issued by opponent No. 1 Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd, Ahmednagar. It is stated by the complainant that complainant many time orally and by telephone asked the respondent to issue the bills of electricity but bills were never issued and lastly on 23/02/2007 electricity bill for Rs 34,520/- was issued which was for the pe...
M/S. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lata JaIn and Others
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
N.P. Kaushik, Member (Judicial): 1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 23.10.2010 vide which the Ld. District forum-II, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi passed the following directions against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as OPs): i) That OP No.1 and 2 shall refund Rs.11 lakh as the depreciated value of the car to the complainant ii) That the complainant is not liable to pay Rs.5,28,968/- to the OP No.3 iii) OPs shall pay Rs.1 lakh to the complainant as compensation for mental agony, harassment and sheer suffering together with ligitation charges. 2. Facts in brief are that the complainant Smt. Lata Jain r/o 1C/5, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi purchased a Skoda Laura vehicle from Silvertone Motors Pvt. Ltd. (OP No.2), who happened to be the authorized dealer of Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad, Maharashtra (OP No.1). Price of the car was Rs.18,18,638/-. The car was under warranty for a period of two years. On 24.7.2008, the complainan...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through : Divisional Manager, ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.09.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum"), in Complaint Case No.CC/63/2012. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, has allowed the complaint and directed the appellant/O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.91,713.04 to the respondent / complainant within a month, otherwise the aforesaid amount, would be payable along with interest @ 10% p.a. The District Forum has further directed the appellant/O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation. 2. The facts of the complaint of the respondent/ complainant before the District Forum are : that the respondent/complainant has purchased a medical policy No.193300/48/2011/843 for Rs.2,00,000/- for the period from 08.09.2010 to 07.09.2011 from the appellant/O.P./ Insurance Company. During the subsistence of the insurance policy, on 10.02.2011 ...
For the Appellant: Mukesh Sharma, Advocate. for the Respondents: R1, R ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.11.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum"), in Complaint Case No.31/2010. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, has allowed the complaint of the respondent No.1 / complainant and directed the appellant/O.P.No.1/Insurance Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.9,28,034/- to the respondent No.1/complainant, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till date of payment, within a period of one month. The respondent No.2 has been directed to deduct the amount of premium from Rs.1,58,977/-, which is deposited in account No.304/08 and respondent no.2 will pay the remaining amount to appellant/O.P.No.1 after deducting the amount which was given earlier as member of the scheme along with interest @ 9% p.a. The District Form has further directed that as the directions given in the order dated 21.05.009 passed in Complaint Case No.12/2...
Banshilal Banjara Nayak Vs. Union of India, Through : General Manager, ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 06.09.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.308/2009, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant for seeking compensation from the respondent/O.P. was found not maintainable and has been dismissed on the ground that the same was not filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. 2. The facts of the case were that the son of the complainant namely Divya Bhushan, aged 22 years died in a rail accident on 08.10.2000 while he was crossing a railway track as there was no foot over bridge facility. On account of his death as bonafide passenger of the railway, who was having railway ticket, complaint was filed by the appellant/complainant before the District Forum for seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondent/O.P. 3. The prayer was opposed by the respondent on the ground that complaint is barre...
Bhowmik Studio and Colour Lab. Cooch Behar Vs. National Insurance Co. ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-2014
Debasis Bhattacharya, MemberRecord is put up for orders.This is to consider the petition of the Jdr. for disposal of the Execution Case.It has been made out in the petition of the Jdr. that it has already complied the order passed in the original complaint case by depositing a sum of Rs.7,77,801/- to the concerned Allahabad Bank Branch as the Jdr. firm is hypothecated there, which duly acknowledged the payment made on 24.06.2013. In terms of the directions of this Commission, the Jdr. gave a letter dated 30.12.2012 to SNM Consultants, who thereafter by a letter dated 12.12.2012 requested to arrange a meeting with the Insured, the Insurer and the Surveyor to resolve the issue, and accordingly the Insured was informed vide letter dated 20.12.2012 with the request to attend the meeting, and thereby a meeting was held on 18.01.2013. Lastly, a payment of Rs.7,77,801/- was made and the cheque issued in the name of the Dhr. with the bank clause on 24.06.2013. So, the delay in the matter witho...
Ghouse Pasha and Another Vs. Branch Manager Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The unsuccessful complainants are the appellants. The brief averments of the complaint are that the appellants borrowed a loan of Rs.4 lakhs from the respondent bank for construction of a house on their open plot bearing No.30 in Sy.Nos.267 and 268 situated at Narsapur (V) and (M) by mortgaging the house plot as security. The respondent sanctioned a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- to the appellants and they commenced the construction and could not complete the same due to escalation of construction material charges. The appellants requested for sanctioning of additional loan of Rs.2,50,000/- and the respondent bank instead of sanctioning the loan issued demand notices and initiated recovery proceedings under SARFESI Act. 2. The respondent resisted the case contending that the appellants failed to repay the loan amount as per agreed terms and conditions and as such the respondent issued demand notice. The appellants instead of repaying the loan requ...
Raosaheb Vs. Dy. Executive Engineer, Msedcl Beed
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
Uma S. Bora, Member: 1. Raosaheb Annarao Nagargoje appellant herein/original complainant challenges in this appeal dismissal of consumer complaint No.31/2007 by District Forum Beed on 28.11.2007. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are as under: Complaint was filed against Dy. Executive Engineer, MSEDCL, Urban, Beed. Complainant is residing at officer colony Beed and had obtained electric connection for domestic purpose. Consumer number of complainant was 576010208521 and his meter number was 9000148237. It is the case of the complainant that he was regularly paying the electricity bills, but as his electric meter was burnt he applied with the respondent on 12.07.2000 for replacement of the meter, but his application was not responded. In Dec.2003 digital meter was installed. Complainant had deposited regularly electricity charges even though bill of Dec.2005 and 2nd Jan.2006 for Rs.10,550/- was issued. Said bill was of exorbitant amount and therefore complainant got the shock. Therefo...
Maya Academy of Advanced Cinematics and Another Kritika Sharda
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.10.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.175/2012. By the impugned order, the complaint of the respondent/complainant, has been partly allowed and the District Forum, has directed the appellants/OPs to pay a sum of Rs.1,71,000/- to the respondent/complainant, along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 30.05.2012 till date of payment, within a period of one month from the date of order. The District Forum, has further directed the appellants/OPs to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and a sum of Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation to the respondent/complainant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the respondent/complainant before the District Forum are : that the complainant / respondent, who is a regular student of Class XI in Rajkumar College, Raipur had taken admis...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »