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.
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. and Another Vs. Laxman Koli and Others
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. These appeals have been filed by the OPs in C.C. No.103/2007, and, they are directed against order dated 22/08/2013 of the North Goa District Forum at Porvorim, and, can be conveniently disposed off by this common order. 2. Respondent No.1/ Complainant was duly served by publication in both the appeals but chose to remain absent. 3. Respondent No.1/Complainant had purchased a Mahindra Champion 3W“ BS-II, a three wheeler, on 1/02/2007 for a sum of Rs.1,91,045/- from OP No.1, manufactured by OP No.2, and, had registered the same under no. GA 03 T 6777. 4. The vehicle was serviced for the first time on 3/03/2007 at 1577 kms. That was the first free servicing. Claiming that the said vehicle broke down on 2/05/07, 16/5/07, 9/06/07, 12/06/07, 22/06/07 and 21/08/07, the Complainant filed the complaint on 17/10/07 seeking replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase price paid, besides compensation and loss of income. 5. The complaint came to be allowed...
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Another Vs. K.P. Zakkir HussaIn an ...
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President Both there appeals arise out of an order of CDRF, Palakkad in CC.No. 47/2012 dated July 16th 2012. Appeal No: 806/2012 is filed by the complainant. Appeal No. 711/2012 is filed by the opposite parties. 2. The case of the complainant as stated in the complaint before the forum in brief is this: Complainant has insured his TMS Digital Lab with the opposite parties Insurance Company for the period from 23.06.2010 to 22.06.2011. The machine had a break down on April 11, 2011 and the unit was damaged. The price of the new laser unit is Rs. 14 lakhs and cost of the re-conditioned unit is Rs. 4,78,125/-. As per the terms and conditions of the policy the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant with the price of the new unit. As the cost of the re-conditioned unit is Rs. 4,78,125, the complainant claimed that amount from the opposite parties . But the opposite parties sanctioned only Rs. 1,95,000. Therefore the complainant filed the complaint claim...
R. Bhaskar Reddy Vs. Dr. Isaac Newton Rajkumar, Orthopaedic Surgeon an ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
(The Appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum Dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant / complainant filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.128/2000, dated 29.10.2008. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 07.02.2014, 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, Presiding Judicial Member 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant met with a road traffic accident on 02.08.1998 at Chennai and has sustained fracture Both Bone Right Leg with compound injury. Right knee with fracture shaft femur, right knee with patellar retinacular and was admitted to 2nd opposite party hospital for treatment. The 1st opposite party treated the patient. The com...
National Insurance Co. Ltd and Another Vs. Sarkar Colour Offset, Purba ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
Jagannath Bag, Member The present appeal is directed against the Order, dated 13.08.2012, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Purba Medinipur, in Consumer Case No. 62/2009, whereby, the complaint was allowed on contest against the OPs. The Complainants case, in brief, was as follows: The Complainant has been carrying on the business of printing under the name and style of M/s Sarkar Colour Offset to earn livelihood by self employment. The Complainant obtained two insurance policies from the OP Insurance Company, being Policy Nos. 150303/46/07/7500000279 and 150303/11/07/3100000412. Both the policies were valid from 30.08.2007 to 29.08.2008 (midnight). As stated by the Complainant, during 17.06.2008 to 19.06.2008 heavy rain/flood affected the local area of the Complainant and their offset machine was damaged by flood water. The OP Insurance Company was duly informed and a claim was lodged with the OP Insurance Company on account of Risk covering the damage of t...
Planet Bulls Consultants Vs. Sanjeev Kumar and Another
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.12.2013 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it allowed the complaint, filed by the complainant and directed Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, as under:- "15. We accordingly, allow this complaint against the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 and direct the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, jointly and severally, to refund the amount of Rs.3.5 lacs paid by the Complainant to them for whatever services they had promised. Since the Complainant had travelled on air tickets, so the amount allegedly paid to the Opposite Party No.4 cannot be ordered to be refunded. Whatever cost has been incurred by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 in preparing the file of the Complainant be construed as compensation for the harassment caused to the Complainant. We cannot order the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 to refund the immigration fee of Rs.13,600/- an...
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mimmi Devi
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 24.07.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it, by respondent-Mimmi Devi, has been allowed and a direction given to it (the appellant) to pay a sum of Rs.1,38,818/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on account of insurance money and also to pay Rs.5,000/-, as litigation expenses. 2. Respondent-Mimmi Devi, purchased a medi-claim policy from the appellant, insuring her own health, in March, 2006. Policy was renewed in March, 2007, for a further period of one year, on payment of requisite premium. When the policy was in force, respondent had some gynae problem. She visited Fortis Hospital at Mohali, where she was admitted on 29.01.2008 and operated upon for uterine prolapse. A sum of Rs.1,00,896/-, was spent on her treatment during the period, she remained admitted to F...
M/S. Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Represented by Its Regional Man ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
R. Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, Member 1. The opposite party-insurance company is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum-II Visakhapatnam passed on 09-8-2013 in C.C.No.306 of 2012. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the son of the respondent during his lifetime obtained insurance policy bearing number 16579146 and the insurance policy was valid for a period of 10 years commencing from 15-3-2010. The respondents son died on 03-6-2010 and after the death of her son, the respondent submitted the claim along with necessary documents to the appellant-insurance company which repudiated the claim on 30-7-2011 on the ground that the respondents son suppressed the fact relating to his illness as to renal failure at the time of submission of proposal. 3. The appellant-insurance company was set exparte. 4. The respondent filed her affidavit and the documents, ExA1 to A8. 5. The District Forum allowed the complaint on the premise of the appellants failure to i...
The Station Manager, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Compan ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
Debasis Bhattacharya, Member. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 05.06.2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Howrah in Case No. 176/2012, the OPs thereof have preferred this appeal. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum has allowed the case on contest in part with a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) against the OP and directed him to raise the revised energy bill through the computer regeneration system for the period from June, 2010 to onwards within 30 days from the date of the order taking into consideration units for the period April, 2011 to June, 2011 and adjust the bill according to the present consumption. The OPs have further been directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) to the Complainant for his mental pain and agony within one month from the date of this order i.d. the entire amount shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum till full realization. It is the case of the Complainant that he is a bonafide c...
M/S. Llyod Electrical and Engineering Limited Vs. Raj Kumar
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member: 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated November 15th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Yamuna Nagar, whereby complaint filed Raj Kumar-complainant (respondent No.1 herein) alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties (appellant and respondent No.2) for selling defective LCD 32? was accepted in the following terms:- œwe hereby partly allow the complaint of the complainant and directed the respondent No.2 to replace the LCD in question with new one of same model and price and if respondent No.2 is not in a position to replace the LCD in question with new one then the cost of LCD of Rs.21990/- be refunded to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization and further to pay Rs.3300/- for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. Order be complied with, within one month,...
Rabindranath Bairagya, Burdwan Vs. Divisional Manager, the New India A ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
The complaint, in brief, was as follows: The Complainant, being the owner of the Tractor bearing the registration No. WB-41-A-5911 and the Trailer bearing the registration No. WB/41-A-5912, obtained an insurance policy from the OP No.1 .The insurance was valid from 31.08.2005 to the midnight of 30.08.2006. On 01.04.06 at about 3.30 P.M when the Tractor and the Trailer were coming after unloading cowdung in the agricultural field, the Tractor met with an accident and got damaged. The driver of the Tractor died. The accident was reported to the local Police Station under Section 279, 338 and 304 A /427 of IPC. The incident was reported to the OP Insurance Company on 01.04.06 and claim was lodged. Shri Ashoke Kumar Mukhopadhyay, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, surveyed the damaged Tractor lying at Keshabganj Police Phanri and assessed the loss before repairing. The claim of the Complainant was repudiated by the OP Insurance Company by their letter dated 16.04.07 on the ground that the vehicl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »