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.
Saibaba Machinery Stores, Through Its Proprietor Vs. Waman Narayan Sur ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.11.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Latur partly allowing consumer complaint No.237/08 directing appellant/opponent to pay to the complainant Rs.37,500/- towards cost of the thresher with interest @ 9% p.a., further compensation of Rs.5000/- for committing deficiency in service, Rs.2000/- more for causing mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards cost of the proceedings. (For the sake of brevity appellant is hereinafter referred as opponent and respondent as the complainant) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- Opponent is a dealer of thresher machines of Prakash Manufacturing company. On 18.2.2008 complainant purchased thresher of worth Rs.37,500/- vide purchase voucher No.590 from opponent with warranty for period six months. However, within 15 days from the date of purchase some defects were noticed and machine was not properly functioning. Therefore the com...
Shiva Bitumen Vs. State Bank of India and Another
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 08.11.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant), with a liberty to resort to any other legal remedy, available to it, under the provisions of law, for redressal of its grievance. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 17.03.2012, the complainant deposited an account payee cheque, amounting to Rs.9,36,769/-, which was dishonoured, with the remarks œwrong account holder name?. The complainant was charged Rs.200/-, for the same, on 19.03.2012. When the matter was brought to the notice of the Opposite Parties, they corrected their mistake. Thereafter, the cheque was re-deposited, on 23.03.2012, for which the Opposite Parties charged interest, amounting to Rs.2,604.98Ps. 3. On 19.04.2012, the complainant placed requisition for issu...
Branch Manager Vs. Govind Prakash Sukhija
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 05.11.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, Opposite Party No.1 (now Revision-Petitioner), was proceeded against exparte and the case was adjourned for filing reply and evidence, on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, for 19.12.2013. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the instant Revision-Petition, are that the complainant, being an Insurance Agent, issued cheque No.807196 dated 19.05.2013, drawn on Punjab National Bank, from his current account, in the sum of Rs.3,641/-, as premium, in favour of Opposite Party No.2, towards the insurance of Maruti Swift car, bearing registration No.PB-10BQ-3676, which belonged to his client namely Mr. Mangal Arora, resident of House No.3170/2, Sector 44-D. It was stated that, however, the complainant received a letter dated 28.05.2013 Annexure C...
The Kerala State Electricity Board,r/by the Secretary, Kse Board and A ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
Santhamma Thomas: Member This is an appeal by KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD and the Assistant Engineer, KESB (Electrical Section) Pathanamthitta (œKSEB? or œAppellants?) who were opposite parties in the Lower Forum, against the order dated 25/08/12 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Pathanamthitta, allowing the consumer complaint by the Post Master (œRespondent?) in CC No.180/2010 and directing Ext. A1 bill is set aside and opposite parties are directed to regularize the connected load of the complainant as per Regulation 7 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005 and Regulation 4 of KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Opposite parties are further directed, either to refund or to adjust in the future bills, the penal charges collected subsequent to the issuance of Ext.A1 along with cost of 2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) to the complainant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent on ...
Tarsem Kumar Son of Late and Another Vs. Emaar Mgf Land Private Limite ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
Sham Sunder(Retd.), President: 1. The facts, in brief, are that the complainants were looking for a suitable residential accommodation/ plot, at Mohali. Allured by the assurances of the representatives of the Opposite Parties, with regard to allotment of a residential plot, with qualitative basic amenities, such as approach roads, street lights, water supply, electric supply etc. etc., as also waiver of 5% of the total sale consideration of the plot, the complainants, applied to them (Opposite Parties), vide application No.595, for the same (residential plot), and paid a sum of Rs.10,35,000/-, as booking amount, vide receipt Annexure C-3 dated 23.09.2006. The complainants were allotted plot no.313, measuring 300 square yards, in Sector 109, Mohali Hills, Augusta Park, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, at Mohali Hills, @Rs.11,500/- per square yard, plus (+) Preferential Location Charges (PLC) of Rs.4,31,250/- plus (+) External Development Charges of Rs.1,69,104/-. The basic sale price of the s...
Indian Overseas Bank Vs. N. R. Chauhan and Others
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 12.12.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it allowed the complaint, filed by the complainant qua Opposite Party No.1 (now appellant) and directed it as under:- œ11. For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint against OP No.1 and the same is allowed. OP No.1 is directed:- i) To make payment of Rs.1,60,000/- to the complainant with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim by the complainant till realization. ii) To make payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment. iii) To make payment of an amount of Rs.7500/- towards litigation cost. The complaint fails against OPs No.2 and 3. 12. This order shall be complied with by OP No.1 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OP No.1...
Rajminder Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, Through Its Chairm ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The appellant/complainant (hereinafter called œthe complainant?) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 4.8.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.377 dated 19.6.2008 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite party on the allegations that the complain ant is consumer of OP having connection No. C21CL06021W and is regularly paying the bills. He has made all the payments for the bills raised on the complainant. However, the opposite party issued bill dated 10.6.2008 payable by 25.6.2008 to the complainant wherein Rs.17,590/- has been charged in the head of sundry charges. The complainant asked the Ops that he is regularly paying the bills and how these charges have been levelled against him but the Ops have failed to explain...
M/S Krishi Raja Tractor, Through Its Proprietor Vs. Appa Namdeo Godamb ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal takes an exception to the exparte judgment and order dated 30.9.2013 passed by District Consumer Forum Aurangabad partly allowing consumer complaint No.262/2012 directing appellant/opponent to replace the tractor tyres and further to pay compensation of Rs.1000/- for causing mental agony and Rs.1000/- more towards cost of the proceedings. (For the sake of brevity appellant is herein after referred as opponent and respondents as complainants) 2. Considering the facts of the case and arguments advanced by learned counsel for both sides while hearing before admission we have decided to dispose of this appeal at the stage of admission itself. 3. Opponent M/s Krishi Raja Tractor is a dealer of Eicher Tractor manufacturing company. On 30.11.2011 complainants purchased the tractor from opponent dealer for consideration of Rs.3,67,870/-. According to complainants within 3-4 months the tractor tyres are damaged. Therefore they contacted o...
Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited and Om Parkash Jindal and ...
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 31.10.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent no.1), and directed Opposite Party No.4 (now appellant), as under:- œIn the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party No.4 is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.4 and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party No.4 is directed to:- [a] To pay Rs.2,14,932/- as per invoice no. SIP111382, dated 30.09.2011, along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of its payment by the Complainant i.e. 13.10.2011, till it is paid; [b] To pay Rs.25,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and harassment to the...
Hdfc Bank Limited Vs. Bal Krishan Sood 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 30.01.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, Opposite Party No.4, (now applicant/Revision-Petitioner), was proceeded against exparte. 2. The facts, of the Consumer Complaint bearing No.617 of 2012, are that, in pursuance of the wide publicity, given by Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 (now respondents no.2 to 4), with regard to timely and qualitative allotment of flats, the complainant applied for the registration of a flat, and deposited a sum of Rs.2,80,000/-, vide cheque no.054052 dated 06.12.2010, drawn on Allahabad Bank/Opposite Party no.5/ Respondent no.5. According to the registration letter dated 16.12.2010, the complainant was required to be allotted a flat, by 30.11.2011. It was stated that, it was provided in the said letter that, in case, Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, failed to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »