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.
Vansing Mangaram Rathod Vs. Hyundai Motor India Limited and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-04-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.12.2007 passed by Dist.Consumer Forum Aurangabad dismissing consumer complaint No.303/2006. (For the sake of brevity appellant is herein after referred as complainant and respondent No.1 as opponent No.1 and respondent No.2 as opponent No.2.) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:- Opponent No.1 Hyundai Motor India Ltd. is a motor manufacturing company. Opponent No.2 M/s Dhoot Motors Aurangabad is a dealer of opponent No.1. In the month of February 2006 opponents had floated a scheme giving some gift offers to the prospective purchasers of Hyundai car from opponent No.1. Accordingly, advertisement was published in Daily Lokmat newspaper. As the complainant was in need of car, on 18.2.2006 he purchased Hyundai car from opponent No.2. Moreover, the special program was organized by opponents at Aurangabad for two days inviting purchasers of the cars during the ...
Chandigarh Housing Board Vs. Joginder Singh
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the common order dated 15.01.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted one of the Consumer Complaints, bearing No.647 of 2013, titled as Joginder Singh Vs. Chandigarh Housing Board, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant), as under:- œSimilarly, the complaint case No.647 of 2013 titled as Joginder Singh Vs. Chandigarh Housing Board is also partly allowed with the following directions to OP :- i) To pay interest at the savings bank rate on the amount of Rs.70,000/- from 4.12.2010 (i.e. one month after the draw of lots, wherein the complainant was not successful) to March, 2013 (the date on which the amount from the OP was received). ii) To make payment of an amount of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant towards litigation costs.The order passed shall b...
Kuoni Travel (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Amritpal Singh Gill
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
Sham Sunder, (Retd.), President: 1. This Revision-Petition is directed against the order dated 30.01.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, the Opposite Parties (now one of which is the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2), were proceeded against exparte. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, in the month of May 2013, the complainant, alongwith his wife, planned a trip to Malaysia and Singapore, between 15th June, 2013 to 20th June, 2013, for which, they approached the Opposite Parties. They met Opposite Party No.3, who explained them about various tour packages, offered by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. After going through the travel packages, as also suggested by Opposite Party No.3, the complainant chose seven days value travel package to Malaysia and Singapore. It was stated that the Opposite Parties, vide email dated 16.05.2013, asked the complainant to submit various do...
Haridas Warluji Gudadhe Vs. Dinkarrao Motiramji Meher and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. These four appeals are preferred against common order dtd. 19.01.2010 passed by Addl. District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in four consumer complaints bearing Nos. CC/09/250 to CC/09/253 by which the said complaints have been partly allowed. All these four appeals are being disposed of by this common order as common question of law and facts is involved in them. 2. The common case of these complainants as set out in their respective complaints in brief is that the original opposite party (for short the O.P.) is the land developer and owner of the land bearing Ph.No.49, Kh.No.99 of Village Hingna. The O.P. agreed to sell the plots of the said land specified in the respect complaints to the respective complainants for a consideration which is also specified in the respective complaints. Accordingly the agreement to sell was executed in favour of each of the complainants on respective dates mentioned in the complaints. The respective complainants paid the cons...
United India Insurance Company Limited and Another Vs. Ravinder Kaul
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.01.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent), and directed the Opposite Parties (now applicants/ appellants), as under:- œTaking the same view, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to make payment on non-standard basis against the insurance claim. Accordingly 75% of the IDV (Rs.3.60 lacs) of the vehicle be paid to the complainant towards the claim. OPs will also pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. This order be complied by the opposite parties, within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the Opposite Parties shall be liable to pay the awarded amount, along with interest @9% per annum, from the date of this order, till the date of payment, besides the cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-.? 2....
Varinder Arora Vs. Anytime India Fitness Limited and Another
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This Revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.12.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed the Miscellaneous Application, bearing No.174 of 2013, passed in Criminal Petition No.114 of 2013, filed by the applicant/complainant (now Revision-Petitioner). 2. The Consumer Complaint, bearing No.790 of 2012, was filed by the complainant (now Revision- Petitioner), who is an Advocate, against Anytime India Fitness Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., (Opposite Parties), which was allowed by the District Forum, on 26.07.2013, and the following operative order was passed :- œIn view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved his case. Therefore, the complaint stands allowed. The OPs are directed to refund Rs.8491/- to the complainant. They are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and...
P.Lakshmi and Others Vs. Dr. A.V. Subba Rao
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
T. Ashok Kumar, Member 1. This complaint is filed U/s.17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/-. 2. The facts of the complaint are that the complainant No.1 is the wife and complainants 2 to 4 are the children of late P.Seshagiri Rao. The complainants averred that Mr.P.Seshagiri Rao used to visit the opposite party for his general check up and treatment and accordingly on 02-10-2010 visited the opposite party hospital for medical check up and again on 27-10-2010 he Mr.P.Seshagiri Rao along with his son-in-law visited the opposite party hospital and Dr.A.V.Subba Rao examined him and recommended certain tests. The said Mr.P.Seshagiri Rao underwent the tests at Swetha Dianostics, Rajahmundry and approached the opposite party with reports. The opposite party after examination of the reports though commented Abnormal ECG and though it was reported by Mr.P.Seshagiri Rao that there was burning pain in chest during exercise did not adm...
Poonam Salaria Vs. the Registrar, Guru Nanak Dev University and Anothe ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (inshort CP Act) on the allegations that during the year 2005-2006 she got admission in B.A. 1st Year with OP No. 2 under the control of OP No. 1 and passed B.A. 1styear under Roll No. 53655 and certificate No. 734409 was issued on 27.6.2006 and then she took admissionin B.A. IInd year in the Academic Year 2006-07 with OP No. 2 and accordingly, she appeared in B.A. IInd year and passed that class underUniversity Roll No. 235288 and then she got admission in B.A. IIIrd year in the academic year 2007-08 and deposited there quired admission fee. However, the Result Section issued slip in which her result reveals R.L. but the official had written her marks in B.A. IInd year as 425/800 and result passed and when she visited the opposite party to get the original details marks sheet of B.A. IInd year then their official name, Pushpa Rani d...
Prabh Dayal Wadhwa Vs. Aegon Religare Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anot ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.11.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it disposed of the complainant, filed by the complainant (now appellant) in the following manner:- 10.. The Opposite Parties need to process the claim of the Complainant as per the Regulations reproduced hereinabove. However, before the Opposite Parties can process the claim, the Complainant needs to make a formal request to the Opposite Parties for the same, so that the Opposite Parties can process his claim as per the above clauses. 11. The complainant may choose to approach the Opposite Parties for cancellation of the Policy in terms of clause 7 above, if he desires. Opposite Parties should comply with his request in terms of the IRDA Guidelines. Complaint is disposed off accordingly. No costs.? 2. The facts, in brief, are that in the last week of March, 2010, on...
Surinder Kumar Mittal Vs. the State of Haryana and Others
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This Revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.09.2013, vide which, First Appeal No.335 of 2013, titled as The State of Haryana and another Vs. Surinder Kumar Mittal (now Revision-Petitioner), was accepted by this Commission, holding that the Consumer Complaint bearing No.343 of 2012, was not maintainable, as the complainant/Revision-Petitioner did not fall within the definition of a consumer. 2. The facts, in brief, of the Consumer Complaint, bearing No.343 of 2012, are that the complainant was in service of the State of Haryana. He served the State of Haryana, for the period from 14.01.1977 to 20.04.2003, and, ultimately, retired. Being a permanent employee of the State of Haryana, the complainant was entitled to the contractual obligations, as contained in the Civil Services Rules, and various other commitments, issued from time to time. The Opposite Parties had issued letter dated 20.07.1981, for the grant of special increment, in t...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »