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.
Quadros Motors, Through Evancio Quadros Vs. Smita Sawant @ Smita Wadik ...
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. This appeal is filed by Opposite Party No.1 in C.C. No. 03/2010, and is directed against order dated 13/02/2013 of the South Goa District Forum, Margao by which the consumer complaint filed by the Complainant has been allowed. 2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose off this appeal and for that the parties to this appeal will be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the complaint. 3. The Complainant visited the showroom of OP No.1 on 25/04/2009 and obtained a quotation for purchase of Suzuki Access 125 for Rs.51,338/-. The Complainant desired to have the said scooter on 27/04/2009, that being Akshay tritiya day, and, on being told by Mr. Quadros that in case she paid the entire money on that day she could get the said scooter on the said Akshay Tritiya day. Mr. Quadros also impressed on the Complainant that he would provide a red colour scooter which would be elegant for a lady. The Complainant, therefore, immediately paid R...
Nighat Khan Vs. Nafisa Begum
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
Salma Noor, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.12.2011 in case No.126/2010 of the CDRF-II, Udyog Sadan, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi vide which appellant/OP is directed to refund Rs.5,000/- along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental and physical harassment including litigation charges. 2. Being aggrieved appellant filed this appeal before this Commission. This appeal is accompanied with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. According to the appellant himself there is a delay of 381 days. 3. We have heard Sh. Nighat Khan, Appellant present in person and Ms. Nafisa Begum, respondent in person and perused the material on record. 4. It is admitted by the applicant in its applications that there is a delay of 381 days in filing the present appeal. Grounds for condoning the delay given by the applicant/appellant are that she was not aware of the order of the District Forum as it was an ex-parte order, but order of the District ...
Mani Ram Semalti Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Through General Mana ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed by the complainant against the order dated 12.01.2010 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 88 of 2009, thereby disposing of the consumer complaint filed by the complainant and referring the dispute raised by the complainant to the Arbitrator to be appointed by the service provider in view of Sub-section (1) of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that in the month of December, 2006, the complainant shifted from the government accommodation provided to him to his own house situated at 70/1, Kalidas Road, Dehradun and got his landline connection No. 2740972 transferred to his house. It is alleged that the telephone department installed the telephone at the house of the complainant without any underground cable, on account whereof, the telephone did not work prop...
United India Insurance Company Limited, Through : Divisional Manager, ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.10.2013, passed District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum?) in Complaint Case No.213/2012. By the impugned order the learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the respondent/complainant and directed the appellant/O.P./Insurance Company to pay within a month a sum of , Rs.52,500/- to the respondent/complainant, along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 25.06.2012 till date of payment. The District Forum has further directed the appellant/O.P./Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards Advocate Fees and cost of litigation to the respondent /complainant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the respondent/complainant before the District Forum are : that the respondent/complainant is owner of vehicle Hero Honda Hunk bearing registration No.C.G.0...
M/S. Vvr Housing India Pvt. Ltd., by Its Chairman and Managing Directo ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
Gopala Krishna Tamada, President 1) The un-successful Opposite Parties viz., M/s. VVR Housing India Pvt. Ltd., are the appellants and they challenged the order dt. 25.2.2013 made in CC 75/2012 on the file of Dist. Forum, Tirupathi whereby the Dist. Forum while allowing the complaint filed by the respondents herein directed the appellants/Opposite Parties topay a sum of Rs.12,46,884/- to 1st complainant and Rs.4,10,183/- to 2nd complainant (including proportionate costs). Complainants one and two are also entitled for interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint that is 20.11.2012, till the date of realization, on Rs.7,01,000/- and Rs.2,01,000/- respectively and also awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs. 2) The factual matrix of the case in brief is that the complainants being attracted by the House Property Development Scheme floated by the appellants/Opposite Parties booked four plots by paying Rs. 2,000/- towards membership fee. They remitted...
Asees Mohan Singh Gill Vs. Aviva Life Insurance Co. India
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
Padma Pandey, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.02.2014, 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. In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased an Insurance Policy dated 7.2.2008, Annexure C-1, from the Opposite Party, after filling up a proposal form on 9.1.2008, and on paying Rs.50,000/- as premium. The representative of the Opposite Party explained the policy plans and assured the complainant that three regular premiums paid by him shall fetch him an amount with handsome interest after three years plus a Life Insurance Policy. The complainant paid the premium of Rs.50,000/- for next two years, and waited patiently for his amount after that. It was further stated that the complainant received a letter dated 18.1.2013 from the Opposite Party alongwith a cheque of Rs....
M/S. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Rep. by Its Branch Manager V ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) These two appeals are disposed of by a common order, since the parties are same and also that the appeals deal with similar facts, they are being disposed of by this common order. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch office, Chittoor is the appellant herein and these appeals are directed against the orders dated 12-6-2013 made in C.C. Nos.54/2012 and 55/2012 on the file of District Forum-I, Chittoor whereby the District Forum accepted the contentions of the complainant/respondent and allowed the complaint, C.C.54/2012 directing the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- covered under Jeevan Saral policy bearing No.844317963 with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 06-6-2012 till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.1000/- and in C.C.55/2012 directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- covered under Jeevan Chaya policy bearing No.844323766 with interest at 9% p....
Girish Chhattu Naynani Vs. National Insurance Company Limited
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dtd.21.04.2008 passed in Consumer Complainant No. CC/07/465 by District Consumer Forum, Nagpur, by which, the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that the car owned by him was insured with the opposite party (for short œthe O.P.?). The sum assured was Rs.2.80 Lacs. 3. The said care was stolen away on 27.07.1997 during the period of the said policy. Therefore, the complainant submitted claim proposal to the O.P. and claimed Rs.2.80 Lacs as sum assured under the policy. The said claim was not settled. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint and prayed that direction may be given to the O.P. to pay him Rs.2.80 Lacs with interest @ 24% p.a. from 27.07.1997 till its realization and also to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation. 4. The O.P. resisted the said complaint by filing its Written Version. It admitted that the vehicle of the c...
Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sumitra Ramchandra Moh ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
Jayshree Yengal, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal challenges the order dated 13/10/2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Yavatmal partly allowing the consumer complaint bearing No. 318/2009 and directing the insurance company appellant herein to pay the complainant sum of Rs. 1.00.000/- with 6% interest from 09/12/2009, Rs.2000/- and Rs.1000/- as compensation and cost of the proceeding respectively. Appellant- National Insurance Company Ltd. to be referred as Opposite Party No.1 and Respondent No.1- Smt. Sumitra Ramchandra Mohite to be referred as complainant and Respondent No.2 Tahasildar, Tahsil Office, Yavatmal to be referred as O.P. No.2 for the sake of brevity. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the complainant Smt. Sumitra Ramchandra Mohite is the widow of the deceased Ramchandra Panduji Mohite who was an agriculturist. Deceased Ramchandra met with an accident on 17/03/2007 and he died on 18/03/2007. The complainant was not having any knowledge about the any...
Abhishek Rathore Vs. A.H. Khan
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Mar-26-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.04.2013, passed District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum?) in Complaint Case No.49/2009. By the impugned order the learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the respondent/complainant and directed the appellant/O.P. to pay within a month a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- to the respondent/complainant, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 14.11.2008 till date of payment. The District Forum has further directed the appellant/O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-, which is the amount of lucky draw as well as Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as advocate fees and cost of litigation to the respondent/complainant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the respondent/complainant before the District Forum are : that the respondent/complainant had booked a Farm House in Saloni Farm House Scheme of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »