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. R.P.Constructions India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Its Managing Partner R ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) This appeal is directed against the order dated 15-2-2013 in C.C.No.511/2009 on the file of District Forum, West Godavari at Eluru whereby the complaint filed by the respondent herein was allowed and the opposite party i.e. appellant herein was directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 12-12-2007 till the date of realization and also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation besides costs of Rs.500/-. The brief facts of the complaint are that the appellant is in the business of real estate, laid plots as per the approved plans in Phase-II of Bhavanipuram in Duggirala Gram Panchayat of Peddavegi Mandal. The respondent who has a dream of living in his own house purchased a plot bearing No.79 admeasuring 200 sq. yds. for a valid consideration in 40 monthly instalments. The pass book bearing No.397 was issued by the appellant to the respondent. After allotment of the said plot in favour of the respondent and t...
M/S. Fiat India Automobiles Ltd. Vs. K. Venugopal and Another
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member: 1. Delay of 96 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. This appeal has been preferred by Fiat India Automobiles Limited (appellant herein) against the order dated June 28th, 2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Faridabad, whereby, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of actual payment, was awarded to the respondent-complainant on account of further repairs and mental harassment. Rs.2200/- was also awarded as litigation expenses. 3. It is not in dispute that the car Fiat Punto Emotion make was purchased by K. Venugopal “ complainant (respondent No.1 herein) on August 30th, 2009 at the cost of Rs.5,30,000/- from respondent No.2. In addition to the manufacturers warranty of two years, this vehicle was carrying an extended warranty of two years, that is, total warranty was of four years in all. From the very fi...
Harmail Kaur Wife of Late Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd.
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as œthe complainant?) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 16.10.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana(hereinafter referred as œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No. 517 dated 20.3.2007 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties/respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) on the allegations that he got financed a motor-cycle bearing registration No. PB-10-BP-2001, Engine No. 0056431, Chassis No. 58056362 from the OP and he was further agreed to re-pay the entire loan amount in 36 monthly instalments and Rs. 4878/- was paid as initial payment. The complainant had been paying the monthly instalment to the OP regularly but due to some unavoidable circumstances, the complainant could not pay some monthly instalments and her chequ...
Debi Prasad Dutta, Kolkata and Others Vs. Dipak Ghosh and Another
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President. This order relates to hearing on the petition for condonation of delay of 64 days in filing this appeal.It has been stated in the petition for condonation of delay that the mother of the Appellants has been suffering from various ailments for which she is being treated at Vellore and she is fully dependent upon the Appellants. Both the Appellant Nos.1 and 2 are unemployed. It has been submitted that the delay was not intentional and it may be condoned.The Respondent has opposed the application for condonation of delay and has filed written objection.We have heard the submission made by both sides. On 24/01/13 the complaint case was allowed on contest against OP Nos.1, 2 and 5 and ex parte against OP No.4. The complaint was dismissed on contest against OP No.3. On 28/01/13 the certified copy was applied for and it was delivered on the same date. The appeal was filed on 29/04/13. In support of the alleged illness of the mother no medical certificate o...
Dr. Surinderpal Singh Vs. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
Padma Pandey, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.01.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 13.4.2013, the complainant purchased a Sony Xperia Z mobile from opposite party No.1, for a sum of Rs.38,000/- vide invoice C-1. The said mobile had warranty of one year as per warranty card (C-3). It was stated that, after using the mobile set for 2-3 days, it went out of order, as there was a defect in its speakers. The complainant immediately approached opposite party No.2 on 17.4.2013 which retained the mobile set with it, and asked him to come after three days. When the complainant visited opposite party No.2 again, it expressed its helplessness, and also failed to provide any job card. It was further stated that, thereafter, on getting suspi...
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/S J.K. Dal Mill, Through Partner As ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-05-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.7.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Jalgaon allowing consumer complaint No.552/2008 directing appellant/opponent insurance company to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.11,50,724/- with interest at 12% p.a with effect from 1.7.1998 and further Rs.5000/- towards cost of the proceedings etc. (For the sake of brevity appellant is hereinafter referred as opponent insurance company and respondent as complainant) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- Complainant M/s J.K.Dal Mill had obtained marine insurance policy from opponent for importing 500 M.T. of Tyson chick peas from Australia to Jalgaon bearing policy No.2115140101487 covering total risk of Rs.61,38,000/- and paid initially premium amount of Rs.30,110/- and subsequently Rs.3014/- as extra premium to cover 10% increased value. Cover note dated 25.4.1997 was issued by opponent insurance company a...
Rajashree Simant Sukale and Another Vs. Icici Prudential Life Insuranc ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
R.C. Chavan, President: [1] These two appeals filed by original Complainants, Smt. Rajashree Simant Sukale and Ms. Tejashree Simant Sukale (Appeal No.973 of 2011) and the original Opponent No.1 - ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. (Appeal No.282 of 2012) are directed against an order dated 25/10/2011 passed by Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune partly allowing Consumer Complaint No.188 of 2010 before it and directing the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company for the sake of brevity) to pay to the Complainants, an amount of Rs.4,121/- towards refund of insurance premium together with interest thereon @ 15% p.a. with effect from 17/12/2009 besides an amount of Rs.25,000/- by way of compensation towards physical and mental agony and costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-. [2] Facts, which are material for deciding both these appeals, are as under:-It is not in dispute that deceased Mr. Simant Dattatraya Sukale...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Its Senior Divisional M ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President (Oral): 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 08.10.2010 passed by the District Forum, Chamoli in consumer complaint No. 02 of 2010, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint against the appellant and directed the appellant to pay the insured amount of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent No. 1 “ complainant together with interest @8% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment; Rs.2,000/- towards mental and financial agony and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that Kunwar Naresh Bahadur Singh, the deceased son of the complainant, was a student of Class “ VIII in Government Intermediate College, Gamshali, Chhinka, District Chamoli in the academic session 2007-08. At the time of depositing the fee, sum of Rs.20/- was deposited towards premium under Student S...
Dhawanvijay and Another Vs. Nagpur Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dtd.29.06.2002 passed in consumer complaint No.CC/99/541 by which the said complaint has been dismissed. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that they are allotted PCO Booths by the opposite party (for short œthe O.P.?) Nos. 2 and 3. The complainant No.1 had opened an account with O.P.No.1 “ Bank. The O.P.No.1 granted him overdraft facility up to Rs.1.23 Lac. The O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 served four bills dtd.06.05.1999 to the complainants in respect of said telephone connections. The said bills were of total Rs.9,533/- and Rs.9,050/- respectively. The complainant No.1, therefore, issued two cheques on 12.05.1999 and submitted the same to O.P.No.2 towards the payment of the said bills. However, both the said cheques dated 12.05.1999 were dishonoured by O.P.No.1 on the ground that œdebit entry not permitted and no balance?. Therefore, the O.P.Nos. 2 and 3 disconnect...
Provat Pan, Kolkata and Another Vs. Supriya Pal
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President This order relates to hearing on the petition for condonation of delay of 59 days in filing this appeal. It has been stated in the petition for condonation of delay that the Learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II passed the judgment ex parte on 14/08/13 in CC 387 of 2012. The Appellants, for the first time, came to know about the said ex parte judgment on 20/08/13 when the Appellants received the copy of the judgment by post. After receiving the copy of the judgment the Appellants applied for the certified copy and after obtaining such copy the Appellants contacted their Lawyer on 25/09/13. The Ld. Advocate took 12 days to make the Memo of Appeal ready and finally prepared it on 07/10/13 and thereafter filed the instant appeal.It has been submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants that there was no intentional delay or laches on the part of the Appellants. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent filed written objection against the petition for c...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »