Scdrc Court April 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.
Dr. Vinay Gupta Vs. C.G. Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Ltd. and A ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.06.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in unregistered Complaint Case. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant (complainant). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint filed by the appellant (complainant) before the District Forum are : that the appellant (complainant) is a doctor by profession and his ancestral land is situated at Dhangaon, Post Nirjam Block, District Mungeli. The agricultural land was cultivated by the brother of the appellant (complainant) namely Vikas Gupta on behalf of the appellant (complainant). The respondents (OPs) registered the land of the appellant (complainant) for agriculture seed production for which service charge was paid by the appellant (complainant). It was the responsibility of the respondents (OPs) to provide technical services and to ins...
Raj Kumar Mehra and Others Vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Lim ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellants have preferred this appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 13.11.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby, though their complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which they filed against the respondents, has been allowed, yet compensation awarded for harassment and mental torture, is not upto their expectation and no compensation, whatsoever, has been awarded, on account of alleged deficiency in service and interest on the amount of money, ordered to be refunded, has also been ordered to be paid from the date of complaint and not from the dates, when the money was actually paid, in parts. 2. Appellants filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the respondents, alleging that the respondents are builders and they got published an advertisement that they were going to construct some ...
Alok Narayan Vs. Ravindra Kumar Sharma
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.06.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.180/2012. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the application filed by the appellant (O.P.) for calling report from the concerning engineer regarding the actual cost of the house. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint filed by the respondent (complainant) before the District Forum are that : the an agreement was executed between the parties for construction of house of the respondent (complainant) on the land situated at Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.). According to the agreement executed between the parties, the appellant (O.P.), the appellant (O.P.) was required to construct the house of the respondent (complainant) at 1100 sq. ft. of land including material and labour charges and additional work was also included in the agreement. A s...
Union of India Through Secretary (Posts) and Others Vs. Tule Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellants are aggrieved by the order 19.11.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against them, has been allowed and a direction given to them to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and also to pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost. 2. Respondent-Rule Ram filed a complaint against the appellants alleging that he had applied for the post of Language Teacher to the H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board, Hamirpur and sent the application by speed post on 04.03.2011, the last date of receipt of applications, being 09.03.2011, but the cover containing the application was delivered at the office of H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board on 12.03.2011, with the result that the respondent was not considered for the post of Language Teacher. He claimed compensation to the tune o...
Alok Narayan Vs. Ravindra Kumar Sharma
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.06.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.180/2012. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the application filed by the appellant (O.P.) for calling report from the concerning engineer regarding the actual cost of the house. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint filed by the respondent (complainant) before the District Forum are that : the an agreement was executed between the parties for construction of house of the respondent (complainant) on the land situated at Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.). According to the agreement executed between the parties, the appellant (O.P.), the appellant (O.P.) was required to construct the house of the respondent (complainant) at 1100 sq. ft. of land including material and labour charges and additional work was also included in the agreement. A s...
Arte Digital World Vs. Sharada Sandip Kalokhe and Others
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. The applicant that is OP No. 1 in CC No. 5/13, by application filed on 4/4/14 seeks condonation of delay of about 9 days in filing the appeal against final order dated 20/02/14. 2. The Applicant/OP No. 1 collected the certified copy of the same on 21/2/14 and the applicant got free copy of the same on 23/2/14, and not on 24/2/14, as stated in the application. 3. Shri. P. P. Singh, the lr. advocate of the Applicant/OP No. 1 would submit that the said certified copy had to be sent to Pune to obtain instructions and further submits that the exact date as to when it was sent to Pune is not known. Shri. P.P. Singh further submits that the instructions to file an appeal were received on 30/3/14 and the application was filed soon thereafter, on 4/4/14. However, it may be observed, that these submissions are not borne out of the record. What is stated in the application is that steps were taken to send a hard copy of the order to the officers (of the applicant) and w...
Dlf India Limited Now Dlf Universal Limited Vs. Nidhi Gupta and Others
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the common order dated 27.01.2014 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 and directed Opposite Party No.1 (now appellant), as under:- œWe accordingly allow this complaint and direct opposite party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. This order be complied with by opposite party No.1, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of receipt till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs. The complaint qua Ops No.2 and 3 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.? However, the complaint against Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 was dismissed by the District Forum with no order as to costs. ...
Brijnandan Chandra Vs. Branch Manager, JaIn Tractor, Janjgir Champa Ro ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 15.02.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Janjgir (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum"), in CC No.2012/12 "Brijnandgan Chandra Vs. Branch Manager, Jain Tractors". By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the appellant/complainant. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint filed by the appellant/ complainant before the District Forum are: that the appellant/complainant purchased Mahindra Bhumi Putra Tractor from the respondent/O.P. and deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as margin money on 25.06.2011. When after purchasing the tractor, the appellant/complainant plied the tractor for 2-3 hours, then the engine of the tractor became heated. The appellant/complainant contacted the respondent/O.P. and made complaint regarding the above defect in the tractor, then the respondent/O.P. sent his mechanic for removing the defects. On being given...
Mohammad Momid Khan Vs. Magma Leasing Limited, Through: Managing Direc ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 26.12.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No.186/2009. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant holding that the appellant/complainant does not come in the category of "consumer" as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the appellant /complainant before the District Forum are : that the appellant/complainant purchased a second hand JCB vehicle bearing registration No.W.B.26-C-4225 at the price of Rs.4,00,000/- with the help of respondent No.1/O.P.No.1 and the installments of the loan were being deposited by him with the respondent No.2/O.P.No.2, who is branch office of the respondent No.1/O.P.No.1. The appellant/complainant was to pay a sum of Rs.4,58,850/- against the amount of loan,...
Tata Motors Limited Vs. Vashishta Tiwari and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.01.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.107/2010 whereby the complaint of the respondent No.1 (complainant), has been allowed. 2. The appellant (O.P. No.3) has preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 07.01.2013, passed by the District Forum and also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties on the application for condonation of delay and have also perused the record of the District Forum. 4. In Revision Petition No.1616 of 2011 - National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shri P. Rangaswamy and anr., decided on 11.11.2013, Hon'ble National Commission held thus : "8. In Ram Lal and others Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed :- It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after suffici...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »