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. Kanti Prasad and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
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...
Harvinder Singh Vs. Ranjit Watch House and Another
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.01.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it disposed of the complaint filed by the complainant (now respondent) as under:- œ9] Rs.In view of the foregoings, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this complaint with directions to the OPs to repair the Wall Clock in question to the entire satisfaction of the complainant by carrying out necessary repairs, making it fully functional, without charging any labour charges and give 6 months warranty period towards its repair on account of any defect in the Clock. However, the OPs shall be at liberty to charge for the replacement of any part of the Clock, if needed. We order accordingly. The complaint stands disposed of in above terms.? 2. In brief, the facts of the case, are that the complainant gave his Wall Clock for repair to the Opposite Parties, as its str...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Parkash
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
NawabSingh, President (Oral): 1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated September 5th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Sirsa, relating to the benefits of insurance with respect to a buffalo, which died during the subsistence of the insurance policy. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- œ.this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant, with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of death of the buffalo i.e. 5.3.2010 till payment. The complainant is also hereby allowed compensation of Rs.5,000/- for harassment, mental agony etc., besides litigation expenses of Rs.1100/-. These two amounts be paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, otherwise with interest at the same rate of interest i.e. @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 21.5.2010 till payment.? ...
Shyamsundar Jairam Lulekar Vs. Chandrakant Madhaoraoji thengne and Oth ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against order dtd. 24.07.2008 passed by District Forum, in consumer complaint bearing No. CC/07/371 by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainants as set out in original complaint in brief is that the opposite party (for short œthe O.P.?) No.1 is the owner of the land bearing survey No.31/2 of Village Wani. He executed General Power of Attorney in favour of O.P.No.2 and thereby authorised him to make plots of the said land and to sell the same to prospective purchasers. The O.P.Nos. 1 and 2 had given assurance to the complainants that they would provide all facilities and amenities to the said plots like electric supply, roads, drainage. The District Collector while granting non-agriculture use permission to the said land also imposed certain terms and conditions. The complainants purchased the plots of the said land from O.P.Nos.1 and 2 in view of the said assurance given to them. However...
Rohit Singh Thakur Vs. C.G. Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam 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 the order dated 12.12.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum?) in Complaint Case No.138/2012. By the impugned, 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 owner of 2.241 hectare of land, near about 22.983 hectare land is recorded in the name of his father Gore Singh and near about 5.515 hectare of land is recorded in the name of his brother Venkat Singh and Lala Singh. All the land are situated at village Kenwtara, Patwari Halka No.12, Revenue Circle Saja, Tehsil and District Bemetara (C.G.). The respondent No.3/O.P.No.3 Deputy director Agriculture advised the appellant / complainant to cultivate soyabean crop instead of paddy crop. On being advised by the respondent No.3/O.P.No.3, the appellant/complainant ...
K.K. Som and Another Vs. the New India Assurance Co. Limited and Anoth ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.12.2013, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint of the complainants (now appellants) only against Opposite Party No.2 (now respondent No.2) and did not grant any relief against Opposite Party No.1 (now respondent No.1). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that Opposite Party No.2, being the employer of complainant No.1, proposed and got Mediclaim Policy 2007 (Hospitalization Benefit Policy) for its employees and their families, from Opposite Party No.1, for the period from 13.12.2010 to 12.12.2011 (Policy Annexure C-1). Complainant No.1 being the employee of Opposite Party No.2 alongwith his wife complainant No.2 and Mr. Ritik Som, was covered under the Policy. During the currency of the Policy, Complainant No.2 had abdominal pain, and was taken to Panchavati Diagnos...
Sudershan Singh and Others Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 08.08.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirmour at Nahan, whereby their complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which they filed against the respondent, has been dismissed. 2. Before dealing with the appeal on merits, we would like to pass appropriate orders, on the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the name of one of the appellants is missing in the Memo. of Appeal. The missing name is stated to be Deepak Chauhan. Grounds of appeal are signed by all the named appellants, as also by one Deepak Chauhan, whose name is stated to be missing. So, we order that name of Deepak Chauhan, be added to the Memo. of Appeal and should figure among the appellants, in the title of this order. 3. Appellants owned a tractor, which was insured with the respondent for the period from 20th January, 2003 to 19th January, 2004. It met ...
The Vaish Co-operative New Bank Ltd. Vs. the Oriental Insurance Co. Lt ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
S.C. Jain, Member: 1) The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The facts of the case are that the complainant filed the complaint on the averments that they had been taking Bankers Indemnity Policy from the opposite party since the year 1986 and the same renewed from time to time. During the period 11.07.2006 to 10.07.2007, the complainant bank took bankers indemnity insurance policy bearing No. 271600/48/2007/238 for a sum of Rs. 45 Lacs. The said policy was renewed thereafter also. It is further claimed that said bankers indemnity policy is governed by the terms and conditions as per the Standard Policy and Clause (d) of the Standard Policy is as under : œThe dishonest or criminal act of the employee (s) of the insured with respect to the loss of money and/or Securities wherever committed and whether committed singly or in connivance with other.? 2) During the period 1986 to 2006 the complainant never lodged a...
Dr. K.P. Musthafa, Proprietor, Fathima Hospital and Others Vs. Jane Tr ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-21-2014
K. Chandradas Nadar : Judicial Member In these appeals the common order in OP.Numbers.306/2004 and 307/2004 pronounced by the CDRF, Kozhikode is challenged by the opposite parties. The said original petitions were filed on identical allegations. The first opposite party is the proprietor of Fathima Hospital, Kannur. OP No.2 was the pediatrician attached to the said hospital. The 3rd opposite party was a gynaecologist working in the same hospital. The petitioner in OP No.306/04 was admitted in the hospital for her first delivery on 09.10.98. It is alleged in the complaint that instead of waiting for natural delivery, opposite party No.3 the gynaecologist insisted for caesarean operation on that day itself and a male child was born to the complainant on 09.10.98. After delivery the opposite parties especially op.no.2 and the so called nursing staffs of the hospital were totally negligent in taking care of the new born baby. As a result the new born baby had an attack of jaundice and subs...
Syed Zakeer Vs. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. and Another
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
R. LakshmiNarasimha Rao, Member The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the order dated 17-4-2013 passed by the District Forum in C.C.No.59/2012. The case of the appellant as seen from the averments of the complaint is that the complainant is engaged in transport business and he availed loan to the extent of Rs.5,50,000/- on 29-12-2009 from the respondents for the purpose of purchasing Lorry bearing registration number AP01-V-1570. Further, it is the case of the appellant that the respondents assured him that the rate of interest on the loan amount is 7% p.a. and believing the version of the first respondent, he signed the loan agreement and several other documents. The respondents furnished repayment schedule after the appellant paid the 1st installment and the appellant came to know that the respondents charged excessive rate of interest. The appellant submitted that he paid an amount of Rs.4,81,534/- and the respondents had not issued receipt fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »