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.
Msedcl Ltd. Vs. Madhukar D. Jiddewar
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
S.B. Sawarkar, Member: 1) The instant appeal is filed against the order of Yavatmal District Forum, Passed in CC No. 230/06 dated 08/11/2006 vide above order the Forum granted the complaint and directed that; 2) A. The bill issued by the OP to complainant dated 30/07/2006 be cancelled. In its place, the OP, of its own, should fit new meter. Based on the reading of the new meter should then calculate the previous three months bill of 19/08/2006 as per the electricity regulations clause No. 15.4.1. The complainant should pay that bill. B. Presuming that the pending arrears of electricity with the complainant prior to fitting of meter in 1999 were Rs.23732.03/- as per the bill dated 15/4/1999. The OP should calculate by adding appropriate fine and surcharge upon it and treating the complainant to be the beneficiary of the œ Krushi Sanjivani Yojna? when it was first Commissioned calculate the bill by giving him the benefit of the scheme. Such bill should be paid by the complainant. C...
Niren Dabas Vs. M/S. Bas Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Managing Di ...
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member: 1. Delay of 13 days in filing of the appeal is condoned. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated October 15th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Gurgaon, whereby complaint filed by complainant was disposed of in the following terms:- œthe complainant is directed to pay the Bill (C-5) within 15 days and to receive his vehicle with a Warranty of at least one year for the repaired vehicle. He is, however, entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- while complaint against OP-2 stands dismissed. The complaint stands disposed off accordingly.? 3. Naren Dabas-complainant (appellant herein) had purchased a second hand Honda Car Accord VTI-L, Model No.2009, bearing registration No.PB-10/CN-5132. The appellant wanted to overhaul the vehicle and accordingly brought his vehicle to M/s Bas Engineering Private Limited-respondent No.1, the authorized workshop of M/s Honda Siel Cars India Limited...
Life Insurance Corpn. of India Through Its Divisional Manager and Anot ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
S.B. Sawarkar, Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 5/11/2007 passed in CC No. 78/2007 by the Additional District Forum, Nagpur by which the complaint has been allowed fastening the deficiency in service. The impugned order further directed the Opposite Parties to pay the policy value of Rs.2 lac + free policy benefit security sum of Rs.80000/- with all the accrued benefits and interest. It further directed to provide Rs.1000/- as cost of complaint to be paid in a span of 30 days otherwise, to pay interest @ 9% till the date of actual payment. 2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant Sima Narendra Kharbade with her two minor daughters Nishigandha and Nidhi filed a complaint before the Forum on 13/1/2007. Complaint stated that the husband of the complainant, one Narendra Pandurang Kharbade serving in BandC department had taken a Bimakiran policy on 18/12/1994 of Rs.2 lacs for 24 years. The premium was Rs.216/- which was regularly paid up to Dec...
Mithun Chauhan Vs. the New India Assurance Company Limited
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. This is a complainants appeal against the order dated 08.11.2013, 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 respondent, has been dismissed, with the finding that the person, who was driving the insured vehicle, at the time, when accident took place, resulting in damage to the insured vehicle, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, inasmuch as there was no endorsement on the licence for driving a transport vehicle. 2. Appellant owned a truck (heavy goods vehicle), which was insured with the respondent in the sum of Rs.4,15,000/- for the period from 07.08.2009 to 06.08.2010. On 11.04.2010, vehicle met with an accident and was completely damaged. Intimation of accident was given to the respondent. A Surveyor was deputed, who though reported that this was a case of total loss and assessed the salvage ...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kanti Prasad and Others
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 29.04.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum"), in Complaint Case No.136/2011. By the impugned order, the District Forum, has allowed the complaint of the respondent Nos.1 to 5/complainants and directed the appellant/O.P.No.1 to pay sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent Nos.1 to 5/complainants along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint 14.09.2011 and also awarded Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation and advocate fee to the respondent Nos.1 to 5/complainants. 2. The facts of the complaint filed before the District Forum are : that Late Subran was father of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and son of respondent No.4 and 5. Subran was an employee of S.E.C.L. and he was insured with appellant/O.P.No.1 through his employer O.P.No.2 and 3/S.E.C.L. The insurance was effective for the period from 16.10.1999 to 15.1...
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Jyoti Gopal Khudaniya and Anoth ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. Both these appeals are directed against the common order passed on 31/03/2009 in two consumer complaints bearing Nos. 308/2008 and 18/2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Akola, by which both the said complaints have been partly allowed .Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common order as common question of law and facts is involved in them. 2. The common case of the complainants in both the said complaints in brief is that their respective husband had obtained insurance policy from the opposite party (for short O.P.) under the name as œ Janta Personal Accident Policy? through Akola Welfare Group by paying each premium of Rs. 134/-, covering risk of their life. Their respective husband died in a same accident on 15/01/2007 and therefore they preferred claim to the O.P. claiming the sum assured. Their claim has been repudiated by the O.P. on untenable ground that there is daily of 1 year and 9 months in submitting claim proposa...
Pratap Shankar Shrivas Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 23.04.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No.30/2013. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant (complainant). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint filed before the District Forum are : that the appellant (complainant) is registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G. 13 “ L-1052, chassis no. M.A.T. 445056 B.V.G. 64025, Engine No. 2751D 106 G.Y.Y.S.D. 6148. The said vehicle was insured with the respondent (O.P.) for the period from 05.10.2011 to 04.10.2012 and the insurance policy No. is 193300 / 31/2012/7081. During the subsistence of insurance policy, the said vehicle was dashed by a motor cycle at Village Domhani, near Main Road, Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar in which the vehicle in question was damaged extensively. The appellant (complainant)...
Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another Vs. Sanjay Sharma and A ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
Justice (Retd.)Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. By this common order, we are disposing of two appeals, one filed by the complainant, i.e. F.A. No.78 of 2014 and another filed by opposite party (Oriental Insurance Company Limited), i.e. F.A. No.404 of 2013. Both the appeals are directed against the same order, i.e. order dated 17.09.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of the appeals may be noticed. Sanjay Sharma, who has filed F.A. No.78 of 2014 and shall hereinafter referred to as complainant, owned a Bolero Camper, which was insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited, appellant in F.A. No.404 of 2013, hereinafter called opposite party. Insurance policy was effective from 27.09.2009 to 26.09.2010. On the night intervening 17th/18th of June, 2010, the insured vehicle was stolen. Report was lodged with the police on 18th June, 2010, when complainant got up and found the vehicle missing. According to the complainant, ...
Maya Devi Gupta Vs. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
S.C. Jain, Member: 1) This complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Facts of the case are that an œAccident Guard Policy? No. 0200005250 was obtained by Sh. Mahesh Chand Gupta Son of the complainant from the OP Insurance Company and a premium of Rs. 14,555/- was paid. The policy was effective from 17.09.2002 to 16.09.2003. OP insurance company issued the receipt No. 01-00-00011108 dt. 17.09.2002 for premium paid. The insurance company issued the policy and the schedule of insurance in favour of Sh. Mahesh Chand Gupta and under the policy documents the beneficiary of the policy was Mrs. Maya Devi Gupta i.e. Mother of the insured. 2) On 19.05.2003 at about 11:30 pm unfortunately the complainants son Sh. Mahesh Chand Gupta who had obtained the policy from the OP insurance company was attacked by firearm by some unknown persons and subsequently the son of the complainant died at AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi. An FIR No. 148/2003 wa...
M/S. Magar Girme and Gaikwad Associates and Others Vs. Palm Groves Coo ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member: [1] All these three revision petitions challenge an order dated 20/11/2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune in an execution petition bearing No.E-22 of 2007, arising out of original Consumer Complaint No.35 of 2005 decided on 16/03/2007. Revision Petition No.156 of 2007 has been filed by original Opponent No.I “ M/s. Magar Girme and Gaikwad Associates (hereinafter referred to as the Builder/Developer for the sake of brevity), Revision Petition No.157 of 2007 is filed by Mrs. Neeta Pardhe and Brig. V. K. Pardhe, whereas Revision Petition No.158 of 2005 is filed by Mr. Gulabrao Muktaji Watare and Mr. Surendra Singh Wasu. Since all these revision petitions involve identical facts and common question of law, all these revision petitions are clubbed together and are disposed of by this common order. [2] Facts leading to these revision petitions can be summarized as under:- Respondent No.1/original Complainant “ Palm Groves...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »