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.
Raman Kumar Vs. Dlf Homes, Panchkula, Pvt. Limited and Others
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
Per Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.01.2014, 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 Opposite Party No.1 floated a housing scheme in the area of Pinjore and Panchkula known as DLF Valley, Panchkula and engaged Oppsite Party No.2 for marketing purposes. It was stated that Opposite Party No.2 alongwith his wife Mrs. Namrata Gupta and his daughters namely Ms.Kalyani Gupta @ Monia and Ms.Ishita Gupta, who were also doing property business with their father, induced the complainant to make initial investment at pre-launch stage in the DLF Project in which the allotment would be made at lesser price than the price to be floated by the DLF Company. It was further stated that believing the assurances given by said Mahesh Gupta, complainant paid...
M/S. Sri Sidhartha Constructions (Represented by Its Managing Partner) ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties 1 to 3 against the order dated 21-1-2013 made in C.C.No.69/2012 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy District whereby the complaint of the respondent No.2 herein i.e. complaint was allowed and the appellants/opposite parties were directed to complete the construction of flat No.G-3 in Sri Sidhartha Towers as per the specifications shown in the construction agreement dated 20-6-2008 and further directed the appellants to obtain permission from the concerned authorities, complete and handover the flat to the complainant within three months and also directed the appellants to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs towards compensation. The complaint against opposite parties 4 and 5 is dismissed. The brief facts are that the complainant booked flat No.G-3 in Sri Sai Sidhartha Towers at Bachupally village of Ranga Reddy District and in that regard an agreement of sale was entered into between the parti...
Unison Pharmaceuticals, Through V.K. Uppal Vs. National Insurance Comp ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.01.2014, 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. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant got insured its factory, as well as the material lying in the same, from Opposite Party No.1, through Opposite Party No.2, for the period from 06.04.2010 to 05.04.2011, vide Insurance Policy No.400100/46/10/ 7500000005, for the Insured Declared Value, to the tune of Rs.3,98,00,000/-, on payment of premium of Rs.19,943/- It was stated that the theft/burglary took place, in the factory premises of the complainant, on the night intervening 29/30.10.2010. Locks, on the first floor of the premises were found broken. Intimation, in this regard, was given to the Police, on 30.10.2010. Intimation to Opposite Party No.2, was also given, on the ...
Satpal and Another Vs. Ram Kishan and Others
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
Nawab Singh, President (Oral): 1. Satpal and his wife Smt. Kamla Devi“complainants (appellants herein) filed the present appeal against the order dated December 23rd, 2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Kaithal. 2. On March 22nd, 2007, Salinder Singh (since deceased) aged 18 years, son of the appellants died due to electrocution. Postmortem Examination was conducted on the dead body of Salinder Singh on the same day. F.I.R. No.32 dated March 22nd, 2007 was also recorded in the Police Station Kalayat, under Section 304-A I.P.C against the officials of the Electricity Department. 3. In their complaint by the parents of the deceased, it was stated that he died due to the negligence of the Electricity Department. 4. The complainants filed complaint before the District Forum, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 5. After evaluating the evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint by granting...
M/S. Sri Sidhartha Constructions (Represented by Its Managing Partner) ...
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties 1 to 3 against the order dated 21-1-2013 made in C.C.No.69/2012 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy District whereby the complaint of the respondent No.2 herein i.e. complaint was allowed and the appellants/opposite parties were directed to complete the construction of flat No.G-3 in Sri Sidhartha Towers as per the specifications shown in the construction agreement dated 20-6-2008 and further directed the appellants to obtain permission from the concerned authorities, complete and handover the flat to the complainant within three months and also directed the appellants to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs towards compensation. The complaint against opposite parties 4 and 5 is dismissed. The brief facts are that the complainant booked flat No.G-3 in Sri Sai Sidhartha Towers at Bachupally village of Ranga Reddy District and in that regard an agreement of sale was entered into between the parti...
Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited, Maharashtra Vs. Alka Siddhu
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 11.06.2012 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar in consumer complaint No. 112 of 2010, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant to settle the claim of the respondent as per the insurance policy within a period of one month and to pay the claim amount to the respondent together with interest @6% p.a. from the date of lodging of the claim till payment and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that late Sh. Sanjay Siddhu, the deceased husband of the complainant “ Smt. Alka Siddhu, during his lifetime, had purchased an insurance policy from the appellant “ Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited known as Reliance Wealth + Health Plan. The proposal form for the said policy was submitted on 22.09.2008. The...
Unison Pharmaceuticals, Through V.K. Uppal Vs. National Insurance Comp ...
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.01.2014, 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. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant got insured its factory, as well as the material lying in the same, from Opposite Party No.1, through Opposite Party No.2, for the period from 06.04.2010 to 05.04.2011, vide Insurance Policy No.400100/46/10/ 7500000005, for the Insured Declared Value, to the tune of Rs.3,98,00,000/-, on payment of premium of Rs.19,943/- It was stated that the theft/burglary took place, in the factory premises of the complainant, on the night intervening 29/30.10.2010. Locks, on the first floor of the premises were found broken. Intimation, in this regard, was given to the Police, on 30.10.2010. Intimation to Opposite Party No.2, was also given, on the ...
Shailendra Kumar Maurya Vs. Good Morning India Media Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.01.2014, 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. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant was working as an agent/hawker, with the Opposite Party, and, as such, used to purchase the newspapers, from it, and further distribute the same, to earn his livelihood. It was stated that, in the year 2012, the Opposite Party, announced the scheme of lucky draw to get more business. As per the scheme of the Opposite Party, the agent/hawker getting them 250 bookings of its newspaper, would be entitled to some prizes. It was further stated that, as per the said scheme, the hawker/agent, who came first in position, would get a bike. It was further stated that the complainant, accordingly, procured booking of more than 250 newspapers, and...
Pawan Kumar Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Its M ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.01.2014, 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. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant availed of the Marine Cargo-Open Insurance Policy, Annexure C-1, from the Opposite Party, for the sum assured, to the tune of Rs.10 lacs, valid for the period from 05.10.2011 to the midnight of 04.10.2012, on payment of premium of 5,516/-. It was stated that the limit of the said Policy was got extended upto 3 crores, for the period from 31.08.2012 to 04.10.2012, vide Annexure C-2, on payment of premium to the Opposite Party, to the tune of 1366/-. It was further stated that the complainant had declared the goods, under open cover and value thereof was to the tune of Rs.24,31,680/-. It was further stated that, unfortunately, while unlo...
Northern Railway Vs. Balbir Singh
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.02.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, 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 Party (now appellant), as under:- œFor the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the complaint must succeed. Therefore, the complaint is allowed. The OP is directed as under:- i) To pay an amount of Rs.One Lakh being the value of the items lost; ii) To make payment of an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing him mental agony and physical harassment. iii) To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant towards litigation cost. This order shall be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the OP shall be liable to pay the awarded amount of R...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »