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.
Amrit Lal and Others Vs. Canara Bank
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 26.10.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solan, whereby their complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which they filed against the respondent-Bank, has been dismissed, on the ground that the same is barred by time. 2. Appellants filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the respondent-Bank, seeking a direction to it, to pay a sum of Rs.1,71,808.16, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and also to pay damages to the tune of Rs.1.00 lac, pleading the following cause of action. Late Shri Hans Raj, father of the appellants, had a savings bank account with Canara Bank, Baddi Branch. As per his passbook, a sum of Rs.1,71,808/- was shown as balance in the said passbook on 20.07.2004. The father of the appellants died on 17.04.2005, where-after, the appellants approached the respondent-Bank to pay the amou...
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bhim Sen Duggal and Anot ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-24-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chamba, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it, by respondent-Bhim Sen Duggal, has been allowed and a direction given to it, to pay a sum of Rs.36,450/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on account of balance surrender value, and also to pay Rs.5,000/-, as compensation and litigation cost. 2. Admitted facts are that respondent-Bhim Sen Duggal, took a policy from the appellant on 02.02.2008. As per policy, the respondent was supposed to have paid a premium of Rs.1.00 lac annually. He paid the premium for first year. Premium for the subsequent years was not paid by him and, therefore, the policy was terminated. A cheque for Rs.3,550/- was sent to the respondent on 05.02.2011 by the appellant. Respondent felt aggrieved by the quantum of the surrender value paid to him, ...
The Manager State Bank of India Dharampur Vs. R.P. Kandwal, Dehradun
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.04.2013 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 248 of 2012, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the opposite party to restore the full pension of the complainant w.e.f. 01.08.2011 and also to pay him a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses within a month from the date of the order, failing which the total amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the consumer complaint till actual payment. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant “ Sh. R.P. Kandwal is a retired Central Governments employee, who retired from the service on 31.07.1996. He had commuted a part of his pension at the time of retirement, which was to be restored after 15 years, i.e. on 31.07.2011, but the State Bank of India, Dharampur Branch, Dehradun (in short œBank?) “ o...
Assistant Manager, United India Insurance Co. Vs. Bharathi and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Santhamma Thomas : Member This Memorandum of appeal has been filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 11/01/2013, passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasargod, in CC No.319/2011 filed on 22/11/2011, by œBharathi, W/o. Soman as Complainant against the Commissioner Kerala Fishermens Welfare Fund Board, Thrissur, (1st Respiondent), The Managing Director, Matsyafed, Thiruvananthapuram (2nd Respondent), The Director of Insurance, Kerala State Insurance Department, Thiruvananthapuram (3rd Respondent), The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Thrissur (4th Respondent), The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kannur (5th Respondent), The Divisional Manager, M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Thrissur (6th Respondent) vide which, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, as order as following; œAs per Ext.B1 Group Personal Accident Policy issued by opposite parties 1 and 4 ...
Triveni Bai and Others Vs. Golden Multi Service Club, G.T.F.S. Through ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 18.11.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mahasamund (C.G.), in Complaint Case No.04/2013. By the impugned order, learned District Forum has dismissed the complaint of the appellants (complainants). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the appellants (complainant), before the District Forum are : that deceased Sakharam Sahu was husband of the appellant No.1 (complainant No.1) Smt. Triveni Bai and father of appellant Nos.2 to 4 (complainant Nos.2 to 4). Deceased Sakharam Sahu had purchased Group Janta Personal Accident Policy No.100300/47/01/9600022/01/96/30180 for the period from 01.09.2002 to 31.08.2017 from the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) National Insurance Company Limited and the insured amount is Rs.1,00,000/-. The appellant No.1 (complainant No.1) Smt. Triveni Bai was made nominee in the policy. On 28.05.2012, deceased Sakharam Sahu, was threatened by Yograj Sahu for payment o...
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. Vs. Ramlal Uttam Pa ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Uma S. Bora, Member: 1. Assistant Engineer of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon challenges in this appeal the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum Jalgaon on 2.9.2008 while allowing consumer complaint No.301/08. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are under: Complainant Ramlal Uttam Patil resident of village Dalwel, Tq.Parola, Dist.Jalgaon is small land holder. He is running hotel business on the land Gut No.17 situated on State High way No.6. For running said hotel he had obtained electric connection from the appellant. There was continuously load shedding therefore he applied for single phase connection by changing his three phase connection. Said was sanctioned by Divisional Office and accordingly material for installation the said connection was arrived on the spot. But suddenly one day said single phase was refused on the ground that complainant is in arrears of electricity bills. Therefore complainant approached to Forum....
Niraj Kumar Sehgal Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Others
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.03.2014, 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 appellant) and directed the Opposite Parties (now respondents), as under:- œThe complaint is allowed accordingly. The Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, are directed as under:- (i). to pay the sum of Rs.21,503.12/- as assessed by the surveyor in his report (R1-4/B); minus the benefit of no claim bonus given to the complainant. (ii). to pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and causing harassment to the complainant. (iii). to pay Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses. This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No. (i) and (ii) above shall carry interest @12% per ...
New India Assurance Company and Another Vs. M/S. Action Bridge Gap Con ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.01.2014, 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 No.1) and directed Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 (now the appellants), as under:- œFor the reasons recorded above, the complaint is allowed. OPs No.1 and 2 are directed :- i) To make payment of an amount of Rs.10,53,276/- to the complainant along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim, till realization. ii) To make payment of an amount of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant towards litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with by the OPs No.1 and 2 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OPs No.1 and 2 shall be liable to refund the above said awarded amount to the complainant along with interest @12% p.a. from the ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through the Regional Office Vs. Nikil ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
S.B. Sawarkar, Member: 1. This appeal takes an exception to the order passed by District Consumer Forum, Nagpur dtd.24.12.2007 in consumer complaint No. CC/07/297 granting the complaint and given direction as per following order. i. The aforesaid party No.1 shall approve the claim of the complainant of Rs.17,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. to be paid from 21.04.2006 to the day of final payment. ii. The O.P.No.1 shall return the amount of Rs.1,869/- deposited by the complainant as a fee of the surveyor. iii. The O.P.No.2 shall pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony. iv. The O.P.No.2 shall provide the cost of complaint to the complainant of Rs.5,000/-. v. The execution of the order be done in the span of 30 days from the receipt of the order. 2. Brief facts leading to the above appeal are that the complainant herein one Nikhil Datta engaged the services of O.P.No.2 - Akta International Packers and Movers, Kolkatta to transport his household luggage from West Ben...
Bal Krishan Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Through ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. This is a complainants appeal against the order dated 06.11.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, as he is dissatisfied with the quantum of insurance money that has been directed to be paid to him on account of his claim against respondents No.1 and 2. 2. Appellant owned a house, construction of which was started in the year 2006-2007. Construction was completed in December, 2007 and house was insured with the respondents No.1 and 2 in the sum of Rs.15.00 lacs, on 29.04.2008, vide cover note, Annexure C-1 (also Annexure- R.3). In September, 2008, there was heavy rain in the area, which caused a huge landslide, resulting in the sagging and complete destruction of the building. Claim was lodged with the respondents No.1 and 2 by the appellant. A surveyor was deputed, who assessed the loss at Rs.5,85,000/-. According to the appellant, the loss was to the tune of more than Rs.16.00 lacs. The amount of Rs.5,85,...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »