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.
Sudha Anand Vs. Chief Administrator and Others
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
Padma Pandey, Member: 1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 10.03.2014, whereby the application filed by the Revisionist for initiating the contempt of Court proceedings was dismissed being not maintainable. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant Smt.Sudha Anand filed a complaint against the Chief Administrator, PUDA and others alleging that she was allotted Flat No.4556, Ground Floor, MIG Super, Sector 70, Mohali. The price of the flat was increased arbitrarily from 6.3 lacs to Rs.8,05,400/-. It was stated that the Opposite Parties had used the sub-standard material in the construction of the flat and the complainant had to spend a sum of Rs.2 lacs to make the flat habitable. The complaint was contested by the OPs. After going through the evidence and hearing both the sides, the District Forum observed vide order dated 06.11.2007 that the complainant miserably failed to prove her case. It was found that the act and conduct of the complainant was unwar...
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Kolkata Vs. Master Aditya Poddar, ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
J. Bag, ld. Member, J. The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 08. 02. 2013 of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-I , Kolkata, in CDF/Unit-I / Case No.427/10, whereby, the complaint was allowed on contest with cost against OP No.1 and ex parte without cost against OP No.2 . The complaint case, in brief, was as follows: The Complainants father (natural guardian of the minor, namely, Master Aditya Poddar) had taken a Hospitalization Benefit Policy (2007) from the New India Assurance Company Ltd. for self and members of his family including minor sons on payment of premium of Rs.3,509/- only. The policy was renewed from time to time till 01.05.2011. In May, 2010, the Complainants son, ( Master Aditya Poddar) had some pain in groin area . The consulting Doctor diagnosed the ailment to be a case of Inguinal Hernia and advised for surgery. The Complainant in terms of the policy filed a Mediclaim Form issued by OP No.1 for the period of treatment and all t...
Sukant Gupta Vs. Honda Siel Cars Limited and Another
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.03.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, 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 booked a Honda City car model SMT, Colour Tafeta White, after paying Rs.2 Lacs vide cheque No.255573 dated 30.5.2011, receipt whereof is Annexure C-4, and sales contract dated 29.5.2011, Annexure C-1, was signed. It was stated that certain discounts/additional benefits were offered, as part of the deal, for the purchase of the said vehicle. It was further stated that the total amount payable for the car was settled at Rs.8,40,000/-, including paint protection coating, a body cover and two cushions as additional benefits, while a built-in CD Player was to be provided with the STM model as standard accessories. It was further stated that upon insistenc...
M/S. Uniroyal Industries Limited. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporat ...
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 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, ...
The Chairman and Managing Director, Apepdcl ( Operations ) Pnt Colony, ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
Oral Order: (S. Bhujanga Rao, Member) 1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 18.06.2013 made in CC 59/2012 on the file of the District Consumer Forum at Vizianagaram. The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondents herein are the complainants in CC No.59/2012. 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 on 05.05.2011 at about 4.00 PM, while the deceased Jonnada Suridas was inserting an electrical plug to the switch board in their house he has sustained electrical shock and died of burn injuries. The first complainant, being the wife of the deceased, gave report to the police of Balijipeta Police Station, who, registered the case in Cr. No 32/2011 U/s. 174 of Cr.P.C. The said accident occurred only due to passage of heavy electricity through wires in the house of the deceased and as the men of the opposite parties were negligent and due to their derelict...
Mahima Sharma Vs. Emaar Mgf Land Limited
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 03.03.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that, one Ms. Monica Dhillon r/o H.No.1123, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh, was provisionally allotted, unit No.520/SF (approx. area 1431 sq. ft.), Sector 108, Mohali Hills, SAS Nagar, Mohali, in the commercial project, under the name and style of œThe Terraces?, floated by the Opposite Party, vide allotment letter dated 13.04.2009, Annexure C-1, for a total consideration of Rs.37,89,631/-. Later on, the complainant had purchased the said unit and the Opposite Party transferred the same, in her name, vide letter dated 09.10.2009, Annexure C-2. It was stated that the complainant made various payments, towards part price of the said unit, from time to time...
The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, MaIn Branch, Prakasam High Roa ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-17-2014
(R. LakshmiNarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The complainant filed the appeal F.A.No.835 of 2013 and the opposite party has filed appeal in F.A.No. 524 of 2013. Both appeals are directed against the same order passed by the District Forum. The parties are referred to, as they are referred in the complaint. 2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainants wife on 20.01.2005 availed house loan of Rs.5,74,000/- to be repaid with interest at 8% p.a. and she executed registered mortgage deed mortgaging her plot. The complainant stood as guarantor to the house loan availed by his wife. The repayment of loan was commencing after completion of construction of 18 months and after disbursement whichever is earlier. As the sanctioned loan was insufficient, the opposite party again sanctioned a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- in addition to the loan of Rs.5,74,000/- and in total a loan amount of Rs.7,24,000/- was repayable in 120 equal instalments. The complainant without committing any default was reg...
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Through Executive ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
S.B. Sawarkar, Member: 1. This appeal takes an exception to the order of DCRF, Bhandara passed in CC No.46/2010 dated 24/6/2010 granting the complaint. Vide above order, the Forum directed the OP to, i. Reinstate the electrical supply of the complainant. ii. The bills of electricity issued be cancelled. iii. The OP to provide Rs.10000/- for mental and physical harassment and Rs.2000/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant. The order be executed in the span of 30 days from the receipt of the order. 2. The brief elucidative facts of the case are that the complainant herein was running an optical shop in a rented accommodation with rent of Rs.400/- and an electrical connection. He was regularly paying the electrical bills and last paid a bill of Rs.170/- on 10/6/2009. As the bill was for only one unit, the original OP officer, Deputy Executive Engineer, Shri.Dani and team examined the meter on 25/6/2009. They drew an inspection report, took away the old meter and fitted a new meter,...
Abdul Waheed Khan Vs. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant and this appeal is directed against the order dated 05-3-2013 in C.C.No.116/2011 on the file of the District Forum, Adilabad whereby the District Forum dismissed the complaint. The brief facts that emanate from the complaint filed U/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are that the appellant purchased a lorry bearing registration No.MP-17-C-4959 by obtaining a loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from the respondents herein on 25-9-2007. According to him the rate of interest was assured to be fixed at 7% and his signatures were obtained on blank papers. The total amount which has to be paid according to him works out to Rs.7,12,000/-. He paid a total sum of Rs.6,76,200/-. Though he has to pay the balance amount only of Rs.35,800/-, the respondents had claimed a total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the loan and as they are harassing and threatening to seize the lorry, if the said amount was not paid, he approach...
Ashok Kumar Vs. Dayanand Singh
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
Padma Pandey, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.02.2014 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the application dated 24.02.2014 for impleading legal heirs of the deceased Sh.Inder Dev Singh, as also the Execution Application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the Opposite Party (now appellant) was stood dismissed. 2. In brief, the facts of the case, are that on 21.6.2007, the complainant-Sh.Inder Dev Singh purchased a second hand TATA Sumo Car from the Opposite Party-Sh. Ashok Kumar at a price of Rs.1,50,000/- and was also assured that No Objection Certificate would be issued to him within a week by the Registering Authority, Chandigarh. When he went to the Opposite Party, to collect the said Certificate on 22.6.2007, it was informed that the said Certificate had already been applied for by the Opposite Party and wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- Next ›
- Last »