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.
Veena Rawte Vs. Jila Shahri Vikas Abhikaran, Through Incharge Officer, ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.06.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint No.108/2012. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant before the District Forum are : that Mohan Lal Rawte, husband of the appellant/complainant was insured with Life Insurance Corporation of India (respondent No.3/O.P.No.3), through respondent No.2/O.P. No.2 Samudayik Vikas Samiti, Lakholi and became member of "Janshree Beema Yojna". Late Mohan Lal Rawte, the husband of the appellant/complainant deposited amount of premium Rs.25/- on 28.01.2012 before respondent No.2/O.P.No.2. Mohan Lal Rawte, died on 01.03.2012 and the appellant/complainant, is nominee of the deceased Mohan Lal Rawte. Claim was preferred by the appellant/complainant...
Chief Manager Punjab National Bank Clock Tower Branch, Dehradun Vs. Ja ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.11.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, allowing the consumer complaint No. 34 of 2012 and directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant an interest @ 9% per annum on Rs. 20,000/- for the period from 24.06.2011 to 26.09.2011 and Rs. 9,500/- towards penalty and also to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,100/- towards litigation expenses, within a month (30 days) from the date of the order. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that Sh. Prakash Prateek, son of the complainant-Sh. Jai Prakash Lal, has a saving bank account with Punjab National Bank, Clock Tower Branch, Dehradun-opposite party. On 23.06.2011, Sh. Prakash Prateek went to the Banks ATM for remitting a fee of Rs. 20,000/- payable to IIT, from his saving bank account by using ATM (Master Card), but the ATM system showed that œBank declined payment?. When he again attempted to remit the money a new message was shown by the system...
M. Ravi Vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of India
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.12.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum) in Complaint Case No.38/2010. By the impugned order, the District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the appellant/complainant. Hence this appeal. 2. In nut shell, the case of the appellant/complainant before the District Forum, was that he was having a saving bank account in the Kusmunda Branch of the respondent Bank. No cheque book facility was provided by the Bank or obtained by the appellant/complainant for operation of that account. Two cheques bearing No.824159 and 821460 of Rs.40,000/- each, were presented for encashment before the respondent Bank from the account of the appellant, which were returned by the respondent Bank with the endorsement that no sufficient amount is available in the Bank account of the appellant/complainant. In view of this endorsement, the payee filed complaint u/s 138...
Rahul Sharma Vs. Pawan Garg, Director Curo India Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.03.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, the Objection-Petition filed by the Opposite Parties was allowed. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Consumer Complaint, bearing No.210 of 2013, was filed by the complainant (now appellant), which was allowed vide order dated 20.08.2013, by the District Forum, and the Opposite Parties were directed as under:- œFor the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is allowed. The OPs are directed:- i) To make payment of interest on the amount of Rs.10.00 lacs deposited by the complainant @9% p.a. from the date of deposit upto 22.1.2013. ii) To make payment of an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and unfair trade practice employed by the OPs. iii) To make p...
The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Siddique Rizwani
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.01.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum) in Complaint Case No.104/2012. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the respondent/complainant and directed the appellant/O.P. to pay within a month a sum of Rs.1,22,500/- to the respondent/complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 20.03.2012 till date of payment. The District Forum has further directed the appellant/O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and a sum of Rs.3,000/- as advocate fees and cost of the litigation to the respondent/complainant. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant before the District Forum are : that the respondent/complainant is owner of Maruti Omni Van bearing registration No.C.G.04-B-3593 and the said vehicle was in...
Syed Zakeer Vs. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
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...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through: Senior Divisional Man ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.11.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint No.35/2012 "„shok Kumar Jain vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited." By the impugned order, learned District Forum has partly allowed the complaint of the respondent /complainant and directed the appellant/O.P. to pay within a month a sum of Rs.46,000/- to the respondent/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 Rs.2,000/- as advocate fees and cost of litigation to the respondent/complainant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant before the District Forum are : that the respondent/complainant is registered owner of a motorcycle bearing registration ...
M/S. Uniroyal Industries Limited. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporat ...
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.12.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, with a view to secure the payment of any shipment, from its buyers, if got blocked, delayed or lost, due to commercial and political risks, availed of the services of the Opposite Party, and submitted proposal dated 15.09.2010, alongwith a cheque of premium. The Opposite Party, issued Insurance Policy No.SCR 0320000430, on 21.10.2010, for the period from 20.09.2010 to 30.09.2012, for the maximum limit of Rs.1 Crore, with a condition of monthly declaration of shipments, and due dates of payment of the same. After obtaining the said Policy, the complainant declared and submitted the monthly shipments, vide letters Annexures C-5 to C-8, ...
Biddika Nanjana and Others Vs. the Superintending Engineer, Apepdcl Da ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
(Circuit Bench at Visakhapatnam) S. Bhujanga Rao, Member 1. The unsuccessful complainants filed this appeal against the order dated 23.08.2012 made in CC 172/2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Vizianagaram seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as compensation for the death of Biddika Sridhar due to electrocution. The appellants are the complainants and the respondents herein are the opposite parties in CC 172/2011. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint. 2. The brief case of the complainants as set out in the complaint is that 1st complainant is the wife, complainants 2nd and 3rd are the daughters and 4th complainant is the son of the deceased Biddika Sridhar. On 19.10.2010, while the deceased was removing door frame in his house, high tension electrical wires passing through his house in a low high manner accidentally touched his hand and thereby the said Sridhar got electrical shock and died on t...
Sunita Vs. M/S. N. Khandwani Builders and Developers Krishna-lila and ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
Jayashree Yengal, Presiding Member: 1. These two appeals arise out of the common order passed by the additional district Forum, Nagpur on 9/2/2009 dismissing the consumer complaints bearing No.173/08 and 174/08 with liberty to file a consumer complaint afresh. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the original complainants have filed these appeals. These appeals were heard exparte against the respondents since they remained absent, though served. Therefore, as per the single member bench constituted by the State Commission by office order dated 31/1/2014, assigning complaints and appeals which have been ordered to be heard exparte against all the respondents are assigned to a single member bench. 3. Appellant, Smt.Sunita Jejani in A.No.383/09 and appellant Ajay Jejani in A.No.382/09 to be referred as complainants and respondent No.1 in M/s N.Khandavani Builders and Developers and Resp.No.2 Naresh Tulsidas Khandavani proprietor of respondent No.1 in both the appeals be referred as...
- ‹ Prev
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- Next ›
- Last »