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.
Barinder Kaur Vs. National College of Physical Education
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 18.2.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.119 dated 16.11.2007 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 complainant had applied for admission with OP and before joining the College, the OP had taken Rs. 400/- and after 10 days another sum of Rs. 400/- was got deposited and then Rs. 16,000/- were deposited by the complainant as admission fee vide receipt No. 736 dated 30.7.2007 and after that the Ops were to conduct the physical test. However, the complainant was astonished to know that physical test of some other girl will be conducted in place of the complainant and other girls photo...
Surinder Mohan Mahendru Vs. Pano Devi Patial and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Present revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.06.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur, Camp at Ghumarwin, passed in Execution Petition No.12 of 2003, titled Pano Devi versus Surinder Mohan. 2. A complaint was filed by respondent-Pano Devi Patial, sometime in the year 2002 against late Shri Tara Chand Mahendru, Smt. Kamla Dogra, Smt. Sudesh Dutt and Sarvpriya Forests India Limited. Shri Tara Chand Mahendru was proceeded against ex-parte. Complaint was allowed against Shri Tara Chand Mahendru, Smt. Sudesh Dutt and Sarvpriya Forests India Limited. Against Smt. Kamla Dogra, complaint was dismissed with the finding that she had ceased to be the Director of the Company before the deposit was made by respondent-Pano Devi. 3. When the order was not complied with, an application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was filed for the execution of order in December, 2003. Notice...
Chandigarh Overseas Private Limited and Others Vs. Kanta Jain
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal, under Section 27A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as the Act only), is directed against the order dated 10.01.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, Criminal Petition No.100 of 2012, in the Consumer Complaint, bearing No.135 of 2012, was allowed, and Sh.Sumesh Chawla, Managing Director of the Opposite Party, was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of two and a half years, and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. It was also directed that, in default of payment of fine, by Sh.Sumesh Chawla, Managing Director of the Opposite Party, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of six months, which would not run concurrent to the sentence of two and a half years, aforesaid. 2. Non-bailable warrants were ordered to be issued, against the Managing Director of the Opposite Party -Sh.S...
L.K. Grover Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited
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 17.12.2013, 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 complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, being the owner of Maruti car 800, bearing Regd. No.CH-01-E-2012, got the same insured, from the Opposite Party, vide cover note, copy whereof is Annexure C-1, valid for the period from 06.09.2012 to 05.09.2013, for the Insured Declared Value, to the tune of Rs.27,000/-, on payment of premium of Rs.1440/-, including service tax. The said car was stolen, on 10.09.2012, between 2.30 P.M. to 6.30 P.M., when it was parked by the daughter of the complainant, in the parking area, in front of SCO No.1-2-3, Sector 9-D Market, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. FIR No.186, dated 10.09.2012, in Police Station, Sector 3, Chandigarh, was lodged, about the ...
Amarjit Kaur Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, Through Its Chairman ...
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 20.8.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No. 322 dated 4.5.2009 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed. 2. The complaint was filed by the complainant on the allegations that the complainant is the consumer of the Ops having Account No. A22HG530861 and is regularly making the payment of the bills. It has been further stated that opposite parties issued Bill No. 83224 dated 28.2.2009 for a sum of Rs. 56,140/-. As per his bill average consumption of the complainant from the last 12 months was 116, 123, 515, 473, respectively. OP No. 2 has threatened the complainant through notice/memo No. A22DG140833F that in case the complainant fails to make payment of the abovesaid disputed bill and t...
Jai Kumar and Another Vs. Parma Nand Saini
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-03-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.08.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by respondent-Parma Nand Saini against the present appellants, has been allowed and a direction given to them to pay a sum of Rs.71,609/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on account of freight charges and another sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses. 2. Respondent had filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that his truck had been hired by the appellants for carriage of their agricultural produce from Ner Chowk to Delhi, for which a sum of Rs.67,940/- was payable by way of freight and Rs.3,669/- on account of toll tax and unloading charges. He alleged that neither the freight nor the toll tax and unloading charges had been paid to him. With these all...
Amit Puri Son Vs. Emaar Mgf Land Private Limited and Another
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 a combined/joint Scheme, consisting of Sectors 105, 108 and 109, under the name and style of œMohali Hills?, for the allotment of residential plots, was launched by the Opposite Parties. The complainant applied for the allotment of a residential plot, to the Opposite Parties, by way of submission of an advance registration form, under the said Scheme, and paid a sum of Rs.10,35,000/-, as booking amount towards the same (plot). He was allotted plot no.279, measuring 300 square yards, in Mohali Hills, Sector 109, Augusta Park, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, @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 said plot, was to the tune of Rs.34,50,000/-. Thus, the total sale consideration, in the sum of Rs.40,50,354/-, was required to be paid by the complainant. In all, the complainant deposited a sum...
Sai Creations and Others Vs. K. Bhandari 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 30.04.2013, passed 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 the Opposite Parties (now one of which is appellant/Opposite Party No.2) as under:- œ8. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed as under :- i) to refund the amount of Rs.1,01,060/- charged by them vide retail invoice (C-1) for doing the job; ii) to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; and iii) to pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 9. This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of this order t...
Hind Motors Ltd. and Others Vs. Moti Exports, Through Its Proprietor a ...
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 03.01.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 (now Revision-Petitioners), were proceeded against exparte and the case was adjourned for exparte arguments of the complainant, for 17.01.2014. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the instant Revision-Petition, are that the Proprietor of the Complainant Concern (hereinafter to be referred as the complainant only), approached Opposite Party No.1, for the purchase of Tata Aria Car, for her personal use. Proforma Invoice dated 11.07.2012, Annexure C-1, was issued, in respect of Aria Pride 4x4 BS-4 car, wherein, its price, after discount, was mentioned as Rs.13,27,343/-. A sum of Rs.5000/-, vide receipt Annexure C-2 dated 11.07.2012, on account of booking of the said car, was deposited by the complainant. It ...
Terna Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Mundada
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 1.12.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Osmanabad dismissing consumer complaint No.240/2008. (For the sake of brevity appellant is hereinafter referred as complainant sugar factory and respondent as opponent) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- Complainant Terna Shetkar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Dhoki was in need of bullock carts tyres and tubes. Opponent Sanjay Mundada who is the proprietor of Ishwar Tyres and Auto Spares, deals the business of sale of tyres and tubes. On 19.10.2006 complainant sugar factory agreed to purchase the tyres and tubes from the opponent by accepting its tender. Opponent received Rs.2,67,400/- vide demand draft No.294988 dated 19.10.2006 towards 30% of purchase price. As per terms and conditions of the purchase order, the opponent was required to supply tyres within 10 days. However, opponent failed to provide the tyres and tubes...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›