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.
Prabhakar Balkrishna Vernekar and Another Vs. Madhav V. Joshi and Othe ...
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. These revisions can be conveniently disposed off by this common order as the facts are common and so also the law applicable thereto. 2. The Opposite Parties are the owners of the land surveyed under No. 94/5 of Mapusa City Survey admeasuring about 1875 sq.mtrs and had undertaken the development of the said property by constructing a multi-storeyed building known as Prabhavati Apartments. The complainants had entered into agreements with the OPs for sale of different flats on different dates and at different prices and one of the clauses of the agreements stipulated that the OPs as vendors/builders would œexecute a deed of conveyance in favour of the purchaser or any other person so assigned by the purchaser after receipt of all dues from the purchaser?. Another clause stipulated that œin case of any dispute between the parties as regards this agreement and/or interpretation of the same, the dispute shall be referred to the architect of the projec...
Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, Delhi Vs. M/S. Sree Leathers, New Delhi
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
S.C. Jain, Member 1). This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dt. 10.03.2011 passed in Complaint Case No. 1755/2009 by the District Forum VI, New Delhi. 2). The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchase a pair of black leather shoes (size-7) on 16.10.2009 from the respondent/OP vide their bill No. 9681 for an amount of Rs. 749/-, this amount of Rs. 749 was paid by the appellant/complainant in cash to the respondent/OP. The respondent/OP gave a warranty of six months, in case the said pair of shoes developed any defect. On 20.10.2009 when the appellant/complainant wore the said pair of shoes for the first time, he found the stitching of both the shoes opened and shoes were not in a position for use. The appellant/complainant submitted that he had thoroughly seen the shoes before the purchase at the showroom of respondent which were perfectly alright, but it appeared that while packing the shoes after trial, the respondent/OP changed the pair of the ...
icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited Through Its General Manage ...
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 10.10.2013, 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 Parties No.1 to 3 (now appellants), as under:- œIn the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, jointly and severally, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are directed to:- [a] To indemnify the Complainant the amount of Rs.3,73,313/- as assessed by the Surveyor in his report dated 20.06.2012 (Annex.R-1) [b] To pay Rs.35,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and harassment to ...
Canara Bank, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., Through Its Branch Manager V ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
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...
Avsr Nagai Maligai, a Partnership Firm, Rep by Its Partners S. Ganapat ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
(The complainants filed a complaint before the Commission against the opposite parties praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.17,92,780.70 towards the settlement of the insurance claim together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of petition and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages for mental agony, physical discomfort and for loss and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs. The complaint came before us for final hearing on 10.03.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, this commission made the following the orders :) A.K. Annamalai, Presiding Judicial Member The complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1. The complainants praying for Rs.17,92,780.70 towards settlement of insurance claim with interest for the loss of goods and to Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages for mental agony, physical discomfort and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs. 2. The case of the complainants is briefly sta...
Hasina and Others Vs. Iffco-tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. and O ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Complainants have approached this Commission for directing the opposite parties No.1 to 3 to pay a compensation of Rs.25.00 lacs, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, from 14.01.2007, till the payment of aforesaid amount of money, besides seeking litigation expenses. 2. Complainant No.1-Hasina and her husband, Israr Khan, raised a loan of Rs.5.00 lacs, from opposite party No.3, i.e. Punjab National Bank, on 13.01.2005, to add two storeys to their existing house, standing on a site, in Mauja Khaneri, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla. They raised an additional loan of Rs.1.60 lacs, on 23.06.2005, from the same opposite party. House was mortgaged with opposite party No.3, by way of security. So the opposite party No.3 got the house insured with opposite parties No.1 and 2, in the sum of Rs.11.00 lacs, for the period from 03.02.2007 to 02.02.2019, through a policy, Annexure-E. In the policy, complainant No.1- Hasina and her late husban...
Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi Vs. M/S. Sree Leathers
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
S.C. Jain, Member: 1) This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dt. 10.03.2011 passed in Complaint Case No. 1755/2009 by the District Forum VI, New Delhi. 2) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchase a pair of black leather shoes (size-7) on 16.10.2009 from the respondent/OP vide their bill No. 9681 for an amount of Rs. 749/-, this amount of Rs. 749 was paid by the appellant/complainant in cash to the respondent/OP. The respondent/OP gave a warranty of six months, in case the said pair of shoes developed any defect. On 20.10.2009 when the appellant/complainant wore the said pair of shoes for the first time, he found the stitching of both the shoes opened and shoes were not in a position for use. The appellant/complainant submitted that he had thoroughly seen the shoes before the purchase at the showroom of respondent which were perfectly alright, but it appeared that while packing the shoes after trial, the respondent/OP changed the pair of the s...
Nasiruddin, Residing at Village-palanja, Purulia Vs. National Insuranc ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
Debasis Bhattacharya, Member. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.06.2013 in EA No.05/2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Purulia, whereby the execution has been dismissed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the Dhr. thereof has preferred this appeal. It is to be considered if the impugned order suffers from any incongruity so as to make any interference therein, or not. Decision with reasons. Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that there has been certain modification made by this commission by order dated 02.12.2010 in FA No. 270/2010 against the impugned order dated 18.02.2010 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Purulia in Case No. 07/2009, but the Insurance Company did not comply the modified portion of the impugned order, for which EA No. 05/2012 has been made by the Complainant. Ld. Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that the Insurance Company has paid the amount of Rs.2,00,454/- as per the final order in the matter, a...
Chander Mohan Chawla Vs. M/S. State Bank of Patiala, Through Its Branc ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-27-2014
Padma Pandey, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.02.2014, 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 (now appellant) and directed the Opposite Parties as under:- œ12. In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering 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 pay a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.7000/- to the Complainant on account of deficiency in service and causing harassment and mental agony; 13. The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be li...
Niraj Kumar Mittal Vs. State Bank of India Rep. by Its Manager Hal Cam ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
Oral Order: (Thota Ashok Kumar, Member) 1. The opposite party no.1 is the appellant. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder. 2. The complainant is an account holder with the Opposite Party having Savings Bank Account No.30165121208 with Internet banking, mobile banking and ATM Card facilities. On 06.05.2011 at about 06-21 pm, the complainant received two messages on his mobile phone in respect of debit of his above said account by Rs.40,000/- in two different transactions of Rs.20,000/- each. The complainant accessed his bank account on internet and came to know that there were withdrawals. To prevent any further such incident on 7.5.2011 at 12.31 a.m. the complainant immediately rushed to the nearest ATM at Balanagar near BBR Hospital and withdrew the balance amount of Rs.24,760/- from his account i.e. about 70 minutes after the unauthorized withdrawal at 11-21 p.m. on 06.05.2011 at Bangalore. Similarly another withdrawal of Rs.9,300/- w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »