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.
B. Balamukund Rao Vs. M/S. National Insurance Company Rep. by Its Bran ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) The appellant, who is a practising advocate, filed this appeal against the order passed by the District Forum-II, Hyderabad in C.C.No.03/2013 dated 05-9-2013 whereby the District Forum dismissed the said complaint on the ground of resjudicata. To understand the case in its proper perspective, the facts in brief are necessary: The complainant/appellant obtained Health policy from the National Insurance Company Limited on the advice of Bank of Baroda officials for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs and paid an amount of Rs.4751/- towards the premium. The said insurance company issued Policy No.55021548/10/58/000000004 dated 26-4-2010 covering the appellant and his family members for a period of one year. According to the appellant, he is hale and healthy and he has no ailment or complaints of any nature or diseases and in those circumstances, according to him, what was stated in the proposal form before the issuance of the policy with regard to the conditio...
Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another Vs. Ma ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 12/12/2001 passed in Consumer Complaint bearing CC No. 538/2000 by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainants as set out in the complaint in brief is that her husband Mr. Nanaji Mankar had taken the policy from the opposite party (for short O.P.) No.1 on 18/11/1997. The said policy was attached to his salary and a monthly premium was of Rs.296/- and the sum assured was Rs.50,000/- to cover the risk of his life. The husband of the complainant died on 23/06/1999 during the period of validity of that policy. Therefore, the complainant being his wife submitted claim proposal along with requisite documents to the O.P. Nos.1 and2. The O.P. No.2 informed vide letter dated 29/04/2000 to the complainant that the policy is lapsed condition and therefore noting is payable to her. The O.P. Nos. 1and2 never informed her husband and his employer ...
K.S.R. Menon and Another Vs. Apple a Day Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
K. Chandradas Nadar : Judicial Member This is a complaint filed Under Section 17 Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party, Apple A Day Properties Pvt.Ltd represented by its Managing Director is a builder. The allegations in the complaint are that, believing the promises and assurances in the advertisements and also the personal promises and assurances of the Managing Director of the opposite party, the complainants booked apartment nos.D135 and D 137 in the Apple Suite Project of the opposite party. The complainants entered into agreement with the opposite party for purchasing the said flats and authorizing the opposite parties to effect construction on their behalf. Till the date of complaint the complainants had paid an amount of Rs.13,22,689/- towards the value of the apartments and the undivided share in the property. The opposite party assured that the apartments would be completed and handed over to the complainants on or before 30.03.2010. The payments were made believing the...
The Assistant General Manager State Bank of India Retail Assets Centra ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
Mridula Roy, Member The instant Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.7.2012 passed by Ld. DCDRF, Kolkata, Unit-I in Complaint Case No. 164 of 2011 allowing the same on contest with cost against the Ops directing the Ops jointly and severally to adjust the outstanding loan amount in respect of Late Rajen Sen, i.e. deceased husband of the Complainant, with the Insurance Company and further directing the Ops to handover all papers relating to the said loan account and to issue No Due Certificate in favour of the Complainant and furthermore directing the Ops to pay the Complainant compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- only to her husband and mental agony and to pay litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- only within 45 days from the date of communication of the order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. would accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the Complainant till full realization. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order the Ops have preferred the instant Appe...
Manilal Jamanadas Lodhiya Vs. Ajit L. Labhe
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 27/07/2001 passed in Consumer Complaint bearing CC No. 70/1996 by the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur by which the complaint has been dismissed. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that the two persons namely Vithabai Yergude and Maroti Khobragade had agreed to sell their respective land to him (complainant) on receiving part of consideration of the said lands. The agreements to sale were executed by them in favour of the complainant on 22/08/1983 and 01/12/1983 respectively. However, they committed breach of said agreement and did not execute the sale deed of the said land. Therefore, complainant approached to the opposite party (for short O.P.) Mr. Amit L. Labhe, Advocate to file suit for specific performance against the said two persons. He also paid Rs.4,500/- and Rs.6,000/- to the O.P. for said two cases. He had also signed two power (Vakil Patra) of the said A...
K. Krishnadas and Another Vs. Proprietor, the Professional Couriers
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the complainants in CC.153/10 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order of the Forum dated, August 16, 2012 directing the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.2500/- and a cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint and as testified by the complainant as PW1 before the Forum in brief is this:- Second complainant is the minor daughter of the first complainant. For admission in Nellisserri Technical High Secondary School, first complainant sent an application to the second complainant through the opposite party the Professional Couriers, Ponnani. On May 12, 2005 as the school authorities wanted one more document he sent the same on May 13, 2012. The last date for receiving the application was May 22, 2010 but the opposite party delivered the application form only on May 28, 2010. Therefore first complainant compelled to admit his...
Syed Abdul Haleem, Chennai Vs. Dwarkamai Builders, Rep by Its Propriet ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
(The complainant filed a complaint before this Commission against the opposite parties praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.52,62,500/- towards the cost of completion of unfinished / uncompleted works by the opposite party with 12% interest from the date of abandoning of the site on 22.10.2011 till the date of repayment and to pay Rs.7,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service, negligence and dereliction of duty, to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony and to pay costs. The complaint came before us for final hearing on 04.03.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, this commission made the following the orders. A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The complaint filed under Section 12 and 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant filed a complaint alleging deficiency of service e regarding the completion of building work entrusted with the opposite parties claiming for refund of Rs.52,62,500/...
C.S. Premanand Vs. Vairavan and Sons, Rep by Is Proprietor Vairavan
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
(The appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain relief. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant / complainant filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.215/2010, dated 16.12.2010. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 11.03.2014, 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 unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant availed finance facility for Rs.2,50,000/- from the opposite party for the purchase of Toyota Quails car bearing Regn.No.TN 30 3393 for which the complainant entrusted original RC book and cheque leaves drawn on Catholic Syrian Bank as security and even after settlement of full loan amount of Rs.3,52,500/- to the opposite part...
Telecom District Engineer, Dehradun Vs. Baljeet Singh Sethi
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This is service providers appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 06.12.1994 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 607 of 1994. Vide its order, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the service provider to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as compensation and Rs. 250/- towards litigation expenses and to give rebate in rent for a period of five months and also to adjust the same in future bills. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant-Sh. Baljeet Singh Sethi had taken a telephone connection No. 27470 from the Telecom Department “ opposite party for his residence. The complainant has alleged that the said connection was lying dead since 20.07.1993. The complainant lodged a complaint with the opposite party, but the opposite party put it in order only on 15.02.1994. Again, it went out of order on 11.03.1994. As per the complain...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another Vs. Lalpari Bai, Wi ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Mar-24-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.07.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum"), in Complaint Case No.170/2012. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the respondent No.1/complainant and directed the appellants/O.P.Nos.1 and 2 to pay sum of Rs.5,00,000/- which is sum insured under Group Janta Personal Accident Policy to the respondent No.1 / complainant, along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 26.11.2012. The District Forum, has further directed the appellants/O.P.Nos.1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as Advocate Fees to the respondent No.1/complainant. 2. The facts of the complaint filed by the respondent No.1/complainant before the District Forum are that : the husband of the respondent No.1/complainant namely Kailash Sharma, was a pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »