Scdrc Court April 2014 Judgments
Mehboob MuniroddIn Shaikh Vs. Tata Motors Finance Ltd. and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This appeal is filed by the original complainant against the judgment and order dated 19/03/2014 passed by the Dist. Consumer Forum Parbhani in CC.No. 31/2014 whereby the complaint came tobe dismissed. The respondents herein are the original opponents. 2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the complainant had purchased Nano car bearing No. MH-22-U-2784 from the respondent No. 2 which is a dealer of Nano Motor as manufactured by Tata Company which is hereinafter termed as the œopponent dealer?. That, the complainant had obtained loan for purchase of this Nano car from the respondent No. 1 i.e. Tata Motors Finance Ltd hereinafter termed as the œ Opponent finance company?. It was contended that since the said Nano car had some manufacturing defects, it was given to the opponent dealer for repairs on 01/08/2012 and the same was in the possession of the opponent dealer till the date of filing of the complaint. That, during the possessi...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Vgp Agro Farms Private Limited and Another Vs. R. Latha Lakshmi
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
V.V. Jose : Member This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties in C.C.No.332/08 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam dated 16/08/2010. The case in nutshell of the above C.C is as follows. The complainant purchased one unit of VGP Victoria Garden in Bangalore of opposite parties. 22 cents of land was offered for one unit. The entire value was paid by instalments, even then the opposite parties failed to register the land as offered for one unit. The entire value was paid by instalments, even then the opposite parties failed to register the land as offered. Complainant issued lawyer notice, as the opposite parties conveyed their intention to register a different property, to register the property or to return the money paid or in the alternative to register another property. The notice was returned with endorsement addressee left the place. Hence this complaint. 2. The version filed by the 1st opposite party contented that the complaint is not maintainable as it has no jurisdiction to ent...
Tag this Judgment!Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. and Another Vs. Pookoya Th ...
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC 48/2012 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad of u/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order of the Forum directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,94,638/- with interest and a cost of Rs.1000/- being the insurance claim of the complainant for the damage caused to his Toyota Innova car bearing Regn. No.KL-12C-5555 in an accident. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint and as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum in brief is this: Complainant is the owner of the Toyota Innova car bearing Regn. No.KL-12C-5555. On May 30,2011 it met with an accident by dashing against a lorry. PW1, the complainant spent about Rs.3,06,715/- for repairing the car. The car was insured with the opposite party Reliance General Insurance Company by a valid policy during the relevant period. The claim put forwarded by the complainant was repudiated by the opposite par...
Tag this Judgment!The Elamgulam Service Co-operative Bank Limited - Represented by Its S ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
A. Radha : Member This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties against the order in C.C.No.84/2013 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam. 2. When this appeal came up for hearing on the question of admission the counsel for the appellant submitted that opposite party is a Service Co-operative Bank and had introduced a fixed deposit scheme wherein the respondent deposited Rs.1,000/- on 29/12/1992 for a period of 240 months. The maturity date fixed was on 29/12/2012 and the maturity value is Rs.20,000/-. It is submitted that the fixed deposit scheme was introduced by the then office bearers without the sanction of Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The new Board Directors took a decision to repay the amount with interest was not amenable to the complainant and filed this complaint. The Forum Below allowed the complaint in favour of the complainant and ordered to pay Rs.20,000/- with 9% interest along with cost of the proceedings. Aggrieved by this order the appellants preferred this a...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Malpro Silica (P) Ltd, Rep by Its Managing Director Thiru. K. Siv ...
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
(The Appellants are the complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellants / complainants filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.38/2007, dated 12.10.2010. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 19.03.2014, 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 The unsuccessful complainants are the appellants. 2. The appellants filed this appeal against the opposite parties claiming the amount of Rs.19,99,000/- including Rs.17,56,349/- under the peril policy for the goods destroyed due to flood and water cyclonic effects which was repudiated by the respondents / opposite parties on the ground that the claims were not proved in a proper manner a...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. P.G. Vijay Vs. Mansoor Hussian, M/S. M.G. Gallery, Interior Design ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
Santhamma Thomas : Member This appeal is for enhancing the amount ordered in judgment dated 30.08.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram in CC.No.36/2013 filed on 07.02.2013 .Order is the following. 2. œ Even though there is prayer in the complaint to appoint a commission to asses the defects of the interior work of opposite party, but the complainant did not take any steps to appoint an expert commission. So we can not assess the defects of opposite partys work or incompletion of the work. In these circumstances we can not pass blank ex-parte order in favour of the complainant. Complainant demanded an exaggerated amount as compensation for the interest of Justice and it can not allowed to him . 3. So we direct the opposite party to rectify all of the defects of the interior designing of complainants house and settle of account between the complainant and opposite party, and opposite party shall given an amount of Rs.2000/- as cost?. 4. During the cond...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Regional Transport Officer Vs. Vijay Dilip Sirsat Through Power ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
S.B. Sawarkar, Member: 1. The appeal below is against the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Buldhana dtd.30.11.2010 in consumer complaint No. CC/09/118 granting the complaint and ordering the relief as below that :- i. The O.P.Nos. 1 and 2 shall properly register the sold vehicle TVS Teenz Electric Start. ii. If the registration is not possible then O.P.No.1 should return the purchased cost of vehicle of Rs.30,500/- to the complainant and O.P.No.2 should pay interest upon the above price from 16.06.2008 till final payment @ 9% p.a. iii. O.P.No.2 shall pay the compensation @ Rs.500/- p.m. totaling to Rs.15,000/- to the complainant for causing mental, physical harassment due to carelessness of his officers in performing government duty. iv. After the payment as above, the O.P.No.2 shall recover the same amount from the defaulting officers in equal ratio. v. O.P.No.2 shall pay the complainant Rs.3,000/- as cost of the complaint. vi. The execution of the order above shall be don...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhmani Institute of Engineering and Technology, Through Its Chairman ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.01.2014, 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 Parties (now appellants), as under:- œIn view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed :- i) To refund the remaining fee deposited i.e. Rs.75,525/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till payment; ii) To pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental and physical harassment caused to him and for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice indulged into by them. iii) To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failin...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. R.F. Motors (P) Ltd. Skyline Gateway Apartments Vs. T.V. Vincent
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC 341/2011 u/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated, July 31, 2012 directing the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant for supplying 2010 model vehicle instead of 2011 model vehicle. 2. The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this: Complainant booked a Tata Indigo CLS White car with the opposite party by paying an advance of Rs.2,000/-. Opposite party has also offered to give a gold coin and seat cover. The car was delivered to PW1 on 09/04/2011 on payment of Rs.5,05,933/-. Instead of white car the opposite party supplied a red one on receipt of R.C. It was found that it was a 2010 model vehicle. Therefore complainant filed the complaint claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 3. The appellant/opposite party is M/s.R.F.Motors, Kochi represented by its Manager who in...
Tag this Judgment!Thomas K. Thomas, Anandamadham Vs. M/S. Ferro Technologies, Aysha Arca ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
P.Q. Barkathali, President This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC.134/12 on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking modification of the order of the Forum dated, June 24, 2013. 2. The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainant is a retired Engineer. Complainant entrusted the construction of his residential building with the opposite party under agreement Ext.A1 dated, December 09, 2011. The agreement was to construct the house using Ferro Technology and construction has to be completed within 6 months. The total plinth area was 1846 Sq.Ft. and the total cost of construction agreed was Rs.17,54,100/-. Complainant paid Rs.12. lakhs to the opposite party. Opposite party completed only 35% of the work, he has collected an excess amount of Rs.8,03,581/- from the complainant. There are so many defects noticed in the construction. Sun shades and A...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »