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.
Senior Divisional Manager, Lic of India and Another Vs. K. Kuriakose
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
A. Radha : Member Aggrieved by the Order passed by the CDRF, Kollam in C.C.No.312/2005 the opposite parties preferred this appeal. The Forum Below allowed the complaint in favour of the complainant along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.1,000/- as cost of proceedings. 2. Complainant is the father of deceased who insured his life with the opposite parties for an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs. The 1st premium remitted on 28/03/2002 till his death ie. on 31/03/2004. The claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the deceased withheld the correct information regarding health condition and had suppressed the motor vehicle accident occurred on 26/08/2001 and the subsequent treatment taken by the complainant till 07/09/2001. It is stated in the complaint that the entries in the proposal form were filled by the agent of the opposite party after obtaining the signature of the life assured in the proposal form. It is also stated in the complaint that the prior accident and the tre...
S.B.i. Life Insurance Company Ltd., Central Processing Centre, Kapas B ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
R. LakshmiNarasimha Rao, Member 1. The opposite party-S.B.I.insurance company is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum-I, East Godavari at Kakinada passed on 25-4-2013 in C.C.No.30 of 2012. 2. The brief facts of the case as seen from the complaint are that the respondents husband, late Satyanarayana, during his life time availed house loan from SBI APSP Branch, Kakinada for an amount of Rs.4,52,916/- and the bank authorities pressurized him to take SBI life insurance policy. The policy covers death benefit. He was issued policy bearing No.93000001610 and an amount of Rs.52,960/- was deducted towards the policy premium. 3. The respondent submitted that the insured died while the policy was in force and she made a claim to the appellant which repudiated the claim on the ground that the respondent suffered from hypertension dysipidemia and angina and he was under treatment prior to the date of the insurance policy. 4. The respondent submitted that h...
icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Having Its Registered ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Mar-28-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President, J. 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been preferred against the order dated 04.12.2009 passed by the District Forum, Nainital in consumer complaint No. 30 of 2008, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint against the appellant “ opposite party No. 1 and directed the appellant “ opposite party No. 1 to pay to the respondent “ complainant the balance amount of Rs. 2,51,665/- together with litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000/-, within a month from the date of the order, failing which the appellant was also held liable to pay interest @6% p.a. on the above amount from the date of the order till payment. The consumer complaint was, however, dismissed against the opposite party No. 2. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant was the registered owner of car No. DL3C-AJ-6733. The said car was insured with the appellant “ ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Li...
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Through Its Authorized Signatory ...
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
Nawab Singh, President (ORAL): 1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (for short Insurance Company) is in appeal against the order dated August 6th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Sonepat, whereby an amount of Rs.1,79,560/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of lodging of the claim till its realization, Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses was awarded to Dharambir Singh-complainant (respondent) on account of damage to his truck bearing registration No.HR-63/7061, which met with an accident on November 17th, 2011. 2. Dharamabir Singh-respondent got his truck, bearing registration No.HR-63/7061, insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (appellant herein) for the period from April 29th, 2011 to April, 28th, 2012 vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-1. The Insured Declare Value (for short IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.6,50,000/-. The truck was damaged ...
The New India Assurance Company India Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Kumar
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.01.2014 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant), as under:- œIn view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed as under :- i) To reimburse the medical claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,24,929/-. ii) To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; iii) To pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. This order be complied with by the opposite party, 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 filing of this complaint till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.? 2. The f...
Canara Bank, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., Through Its Branch Manager V ...
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed by opposite party against the order dated 05.06.2012, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, in a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, instituted by respondent-Neeraj Kapoor. 2. Neeraj Kapoor-respondent, had taken home loan of Rs.4.00 lacs, from the appellant. Account Number was initially 875, which was changed to HL-1515 later-on. Respondent had been paying instalments of Rs.5,000/- for the liquidation of his liability, arising out of the home loan. He paid instalments for the months of May to September, 2010, but when statement of account was procured by him, it was noticed that entries of these instalments were not there. Also, he had deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 22.11.2006, but in the statement of account, which was supplied to him, no entry of this amount was available. 3. Respondent ser...
Dr. Guhapriya Vasudevan and Others Vs. Tmt. Jayammal and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
(The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Hence appellants / opposite parties 2 and 3 prefer an appeal in F.A.No.869/2010 and the appellant / 4th opposite party prefer an appeal in F.A.No.250/2011 praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.79/2001, dated 14.10.2010. These appeals 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, Judicial Member 1. The opposite parties 2 , 3 and 4 have filed these two appeals separately against one and the same order passed by the District Forum, Namakkal in CC.No.79/2001 in F.A.No.869/2010 by opposite parties 2 and 3 and in F.A.No.250/2011 by the 4th opposite party. 2. The complainant / 1st Respondent filed a complaint agains...
Gurukul Kangri Vishwa Vidyala Haridwar Vs. Ankit Walia, Haridwar
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.02.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 342 of 2010, thereby allowing the consumer complaint and directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- within a month from the date of the order, failing which the opposite party has also been held liable to pay interest on the said amount @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the consumer complaint till payment. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that one Sh. Ankit Walia“ complainant took admission in the first year of M.B.A. course conducted by Gurukul Kangri University (for short œUniversity?)“opposite party for the academic session 2009-10 and deposited a total sum of Rs. 1,28,115/- with the University against tuition fee and other various heads. However, the complainant left the studies immediately after the start of the academic session and requested the authorities of the Univers...
M/S. Mile Stone Real Tech Private Limited and Another Vs. Kamal Gandhi ...
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
Nawab Singh, President (ORAL): 1. Delay of 29 days in filing of the appeal is condoned. 2. M/s Mile Stone Real Tech Private Limited- opposite party No.1 (appellant No.1) launched a project known as œM.R. Greens? at Ballabgarh (Faridabad) and offered plots measuring 100 sq. yards for a sale consideration of Rs.1,22,000/-. 3. Kamal Gandhi and his wife Deepa Gandhi-complainants (respondents) booked a plot and deposited Rs.22,000/- with the appellants on November 26th, 2009 and Rs.12,000/- on December 25th, 2009. The appellants failed to execute the sale-deed and offer possession of the plot within a period of one year of the date of application. 4. The respondents filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Faridabad. 5. Appellants-opposite parties contested complaint by filing written statement denying the averments made in the complaint. It was stated that as per the rules and r...
Dr. Shashanka Mohan Bose and Another Vs. Mahindra Holidays and Resorts ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.12.2013 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 complainants and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants) as under:- œ11.In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them, jointly and severally. The Opposite Parties are directed to:- [a] To refund the entire amount received from the Complainants towards the Membership fee, without any deductions; [b] To pay Rs.25,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and harassment to the Complainant; [c] To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation; 12. The above said order sha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »