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.
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Dhanesh Kumar Sinha and Ano ...
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 12.08.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No.343/2012. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the respondent no.1 (complainant) and directed the appellant (O.P.No.1) to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation to the respondent No.1 (complainant) along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till date of payment. The District Forum has further directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and unfair trade practice and Rs.2,000/- as advocate fees and cost of litigation. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the respondent no.1 (complainant) before the District Forum are : that the respondent No.2 (O.P. No.2 Bank) had obtained Personal Accident Insurance Policy No.192502/48/2011/278 from the appellant (O.P.N...
The Manager, Air India, Nacil and Others Vs. Francisco Agnelo Cardozo ...
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. By application filed on 11/03/2014, the Applicant/OP No.1 seeks condonation of delay in filing the appeal against order dated 01/10/2013. 2. We have heard Shri Rao, the lr. advocate of the Applicants and the authorized representative of the respondents. 3. We could proceed on the assumption that the period of 30 days to file the appeal is to be reckoned from 14/10/2013, as on this date the free copy was issued to Applicant/OP No.1 of the impugned order dated 01/10/2013, certified copy of which was otherwise ready on 7/10/2013 and delivered to the Applicant/OP No.1, on 14/10/2013. 4. We could also proceed on the assumption that Ms. Manjiri Shirodkar, Manager of Applicant/OP No.1 “ Air India/ National Aviation Co. of India Ltd., has authority to file the same as she is the Manager of Applicant/OP No.1. 5. However, what is lacking to support the application is an affidavit to support the very many averments in the application, particularly those of paras 6...
Niraj Kumar Sehgal Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Others
Court: SCDRC
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 ...
Haresh Laxman Hargunaney Vs. M/S. Vinayak Builder and Developers and A ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: [1] This consumer complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service against M/s.Vinayak Builders and Developers (hereinafter to be referred to as opponent builders/developers) claiming compensation of Rs.52.57,000/- together with cost of litigation for supplying short area as against the one mentioned in the Development Agreement and not providing 4th parking space, Mahanagar Gas pipe-line and borewell. [2] Opponent builders/developers contested the consumer complaint by filing written version. Main grounds to counter the claim of the complainant is that the possession of the flat allotted to the complainant was taken over from the site supervisor in the month of August 2009 i.e. immediately after obtaining occupation certificate. It is falsely represented that date of possession as of 16/03/2010 just to bring the filing of complaint within the limitation. Complainant was evasive and non-co-operative and he was the last person to hand over the possession of exis...
Shukla Sood Vs. M/S. L.G. Electronics Private Limited and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 19.09.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby her complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which she filed against the respondents, has been dismissed, on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 2. Appellant purchased a music system from respondent No.2 for a sum of `18,490/-, on 19.04.2006. According to her, the system was defective and she reported this fact to respondent No.2, who advised her to seek repair from the authorised service provider. Appellant alleged that she could not approach the Service Station for 2-3 years, because of her being a lady and finally, when she approached respondent No.3, who is the authorised service provider, the said respondent retained the music system at his place for about six months and then wrote to her, through letter dated 10.12.2009 that the system could not be repaired and offered ...
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and Another Vs. Satnam Sing ...
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 10.09.2012, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No.59/2011. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the respondent (complainant) and directed the appellants (OPs) to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, which is repairing charges of the vehicle in question, to the respondent (complainant) within a month along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the order till date of payment. The District Forum has further directed the appellants (OPs) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as cost of the litigation to the respondent (complainant). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint filed before the District Forum are : that the respondent (complainant) is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.C.G.04-JB-5443. The said vehicle was insured with a...
Natvar Parikh Industries Ltd. Vs. National Insutrance Co. Ltd.
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: 1. Complainant is a Company engaged in business of handling, transporting, contracting, hiring, leasing, warehousing of containers and also operators, hirers, manufacturers, dealers and assemblers etc. The Company had given on Charter the dumb barge N.P. Sushila and the motor tug N.K. Enakshi to M/s. Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (India) Ltd., for a period 19th July, 2005 to 23rd August, 2005. Both vessels had made several voyages till April, 1st 2006 when given on charter. Said dumb barge on its voyage from Bhavnagar Port to ONGC Platform at Mumbai High on 1st April, 2006 with bulk cement of cargo capsized at about 06.00 a.m. on 2nd April, 2006 in the mid-sea. The Complainant Company availed Marine Hull Policy No.250600/22/05/41000040 for a period 06.08.2005 to 05.08.2006 to provide insurance cover for hull and machinery for Rs.49,50,000/- with additional coverage for P and I cover for Rs.50,50,000/-. The incident of capsizing the barge was duly intimated to the...
The Divisional Manager Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd., (W ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
(R. LakshmiNarasimha Rao, Member) The opposite party no.2 is the appellant. The appeal is challenge to the order dated 30-3-2013 passed by the District Forum in C.C.No.51/2012 whereby the appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards the sum assured and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation with interest at 9% p.a. on account of deficiency in service on the part of the appellant as also a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs. The facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the first respondent raised Orchid (sweet orange) crop in his Ac.5-00 gts of land comprised in survey numbers. 27 28 and 39 at Irugantipalli village of Kanagal Mandal in Nalgonda district. The first respondent paid an amount of Rs.4,370/- towards the crop insurance premium and he paid the insurance premium to the appellant through the second respondent. As per the terms and conditions of the crop insurance scheme, the appellant has to pay the sum assured of Rs.2,00,000/- in case of loss or d...
Apra Auto (i) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kanta Devi and Another
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Nawab Singh, President (Oral): 1. Delay of 14 days in filing of the appeal is condoned. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated October 10th, 2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Rewari, whereby the opposite parties have been held deficient in service and involved in unfair trade practice for selling a defective car to respondent No.1 (complainant). For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- œ.this complaint is hereby allowed directing the opposite parties to replace the engine of the car in question with a new one along with its entire assembly and also to put its AC in perfect working condition. The opposite parties are also directed to refund the amounts of Rs.6605/- + Rs.5568/- + Rs.1374/-, and + Rs.8846/- to the complainant. Besides this, the complainant is also allowed lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, harassment and the fee of the expert and litiga...
Natvar Parikh Industries Ltd. Vs. National Insutrance Co. Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: 1. Complainant is a Company engaged in business of handling, transporting, contracting, hiring, leasing, warehousing of containers and also operators, hirers, manufacturers, dealers and assemblers etc. The Company had given on Charter the dumb barge N.P. Sushila and the motor tug N.K. Enakshi to M/s. Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (India) Ltd., for a period 19th July, 2005 to 23rd August, 2005. Both vessels had made several voyages till April, 1st 2006 when given on charter. Said dumb barge on its voyage from Bhavnagar Port to ONGC Platform at Mumbai High on 1st April, 2006 with bulk cement of cargo capsized at about 06.00 a.m. on 2nd April, 2006 in the mid-sea. The Complainant Company availed Marine Hull Policy No.250600/22/05/41000040 for a period 06.08.2005 to 05.08.2006 to provide insurance cover for hull and machinery for Rs.49,50,000/- with additional coverage for P and I cover for Rs.50,50,000/-. The incident of capsizing the barge was duly intimated to the...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »