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.
Kapil Sood Vs. Field Guns Factory 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 22.11.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, has been ordered to be returned, with the finding that the Forum at Shimla does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the same. 2. Admitted facts are that appellant applied for a revolver to respondent No.1, in the year 2002. An offer was made to him, on 8th April, 2003, to deposit a sum of Rs.53,880/-, by way of draft, in case he was interested for the allotment of a revolver. Appellant sent a draft for the aforesaid amount of money. He, thereafter, received a letter in December, 2003, to collect the gun from Ordinance Factory at Kanpur. Appellant, according to him, was ill and because of that reason, he could not go to Kanpur and wrote a letter on 07.03.2004 to respondent No.1...
Adala Muralikrishna Reddy Vs. Govt. of A. P. Rep by Its Principal Secr ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member 1. The complainant has filed this petition to condone the day of 35 days in filing the complaint on the ground the completion of project and handing over the Flat under sale is not possible on the part of the respondents and it came to his knowledge on 23.12.2013 that the respondents had not obtained sanction from the authority concerned and the fraud played upon him by the respondents has vitiated the action of the respondents. Therefore, he prayed that the delay be condoned. 2. The second respondent has filed counter contending that it is a minority shareholder holding 26% equity in the respondent no.3 and it has been victim of fraud played upon it by the respondent no.3. The respondent has contended that the complaint is not maintainable and the petitioner has not stated from which date limitation for filing the complaint has commenced and he has not properly explained cause for the delay. 3. The respondent no.3 resisted the petition on the premise th...
Dr. (Ms.) Mala Mukherjee, Advocate Vs. Mahadev thekedar @ Mahadev Pari ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 18/04/2007 passed in Consumer Complaint bearing CC No. 300/2006, by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur by which the complaint has been dismissed. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that she had hired services of opposite party (for short O.P.) who is a contractor for doing the miscellaneous work of her house namely finished mosaic work in bed room, toilet and porch of her house, plastering of inner and outer wall of the bed room, plastering of toilet, foot stair and its landing, plastering of terrace and outer wall joining stair case. making of one narrow patta in common wall, toilet seat fitting , marbal stone placement on gas platform, fitting of ceramic tiles in half portion of toilet, fitting of stone tiles on three pillars of porch, repairing of grill beam and making of one patta on top of clay tiles on porch. The O.P. assured complainant that he would do work of...
Mamta Devi Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited and Anothe ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant feels aggrieved by the order dated 13.09.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hamirpur, whereby her complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which she filed against the respondents, has been dismissed, with the observation that benefit, to which she was entitled, on revival of policy, has already been credited in her account, maintained by the respondents. 2. Admitted facts are that the appellant purchased a Bajaj Allianz Capital Unit Gain Product Policy from the respondents on 03.02.2007. She was supposed to have paid premium at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per annum. She paid the premium for two years, i.e. 2007 and 2008. For the premium paid in 2007, she was allotted 3657.5037 units and for the premium for the year 2008, she was allotted 3162.2395 units. These facts are not in dispute. 3. Appellant did not pay the premium for the next year, which resulted in the lapse of the polic...
indresh Kesharwani Vs. Magma Finance Corporation Limited
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 30.04.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No.122/2010. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant (complainant). Hence this appeal. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the appellant (complainant) before the District Forum are : that the appellant (complainant) obtained finance facility of Rs.3,19,000/- from previous financer Shrachi Security Ltd. Jabalpur for purchase of a pick-up vehicle for the business purpose on 31.01.2005 and the rate of interest payable was 4% p.a. The subordinate office of the financier Shrachi Infrastructure Limited modified the interest rate 7.5% p.a. and dispute arose between the parties, but when the appellant (complainant) had not paid the installments, the agent made compromise and fixed rate of interest as 4.5% p.a. According to this compr...
United India Insurance Company Limited and Others Vs. Sarabjeet Singh ...
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 05.02.2014, 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 No.1), and directed Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 (now the appellants), as under:- œ In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 are directed as under :- i) To pay the amount of Rs.6,72,694/-, to the complainant as assessed by the surveyor on Total Loss basis?; ii) To pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant; iii) To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. This order be complied with by the opposite parties No.1 to 3, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i)and(ii) above s...
M/S. Texgar Trading Co. Through Its Sole Proprietor Vs. United India I ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: 1. Complainant is a partnership firm dealing with manufacturing and export of the Readymade garments and filed this complaint through its partner Mr.S.A.Narayan alleging deficiency of service against the opponents for not having settled the claims payable under different insurance policies availed by the complainant to provide insurance cover to furniture and fixture, stock, machinery, etc. The complainant availed three different policies from opponents/Insurance Companies as herein below:- (i) From Opponent no.1-M/s.United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Policy No.020300/01/1/32973 for the period from 25/04/1986 to 25/04/1987, Rs.1,00,000/- for machinery, Rs.10,000/- for Furniture and Fixture, Rs.2,25,000/- for Stock. (ii) From Opponent no.2-M/s.United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Policy No.021200/01/1/00249/85 for the period from 07/08/1985 to 07/08/1986, Rs.1,80,000/- for Plant and machinery, spare parts and fittings. (iii) From Opponent no.3-M/s.New India Assurance Co.Lt...
Radhakrishna Co-operative Housing Society Through Its President Vs. Vi ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against order dtd.08.05.2007 passed by District Forum, Nagpur in consumer complaint bearing No.CC/06/442 by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that he entered into an agreement of sale of Plot No.1 of Somalwada with the opposite party (for short œthe O.P.?) No.1 for a consideration of Rs.1,10,000/-. The agreement of sale was reduced into writing on 08.06.1992 which was signed by O.P.Nos. 1 and 2 being the President and the Member of society namely Radhakrishna Co-operative Housing Society (for short œthe society?). The complainant paid part of consideration of Rs.25,000/- and remaining amount was to be paid to O.P.No.1 at the time of registration of sale-deed. The complainant was ready to pay the same to O.P.No.1. But it avoided to receive the same. The complainant made application to Nagpur Improvement Trust (for short NIT) which is jo...
The Executive Officer, Sri Bramaramba Mallikharjuna Devasthanam and An ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
GopalaKrishna Tamada, President 1. The opposite parties are appellants. The appeal is filed challenging the order dated 15.01.2013 passed in CC 7/2012 by the District Forum which allowed the complaint directing the appellants to continue service under ?Nityakalyana Pathakam?. 2. The facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the respondent paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the first appellant on 20.03.2006 for the purpose of enabling him to participate in the seva, i.e., Kalyanostavam every year on 18th February and as per the terms of the agreement between the parties, the first appellant would deposit the amount with a nationalized bank and utilize the interest accrued thereon, to meet the expenses incurred in performing the seva every year. The period of service offered to the respondent was to last till his life time. 3. On 4.02.2011 the first appellant addressed letter to the respondent informing him that the duration of the scheme was restricted to 10 years to all the devotees...
Punjab National Bank Vs. Vimal Pratapsingh Rathod
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 07/08/2010 passed in consumer complaint bearing CC No. 713/2009 by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that she had opened saving bank account with the opposite party (for short O.P.) No. 4 and she had deposited various amounts from time to time in that account. She had moved an application on 04/04/2009 to the O.P. No.4 for issuing cheque book to her. However, the O.P. No.4 handed over the same to some unknown person. She found that the O.P. No.4 paid total Rs.2,02,000/- to unknown person on various dates from 08/04/2009 to 17/04/2009 from her aforesaid account on the basis of cheques of the aforesaid cheque book . Therefore, she claimed from O.P. Nos. 1 to 5 said amount of Rs.2,02,000/- with interest, compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and cost of Rs.20,000/-. 3. The O.P. Nos. 1 to 5 filed ...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »