Scdrc Court April 2014 Judgments
The United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep.by Its Senior Manager Vs. the ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
(The Respondent is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain relief. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant / opposite party filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.20/2005, dated 20.10.2010. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 19.03.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainant being the manufacturing sugar mills and selling of sugar bags stacked and the unsold sugar in bags are to be stacked in their godown for which they availed the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from the opposite Party covering the period from 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004 for the value of Rs.35,00,000/-. During the first week of February 20...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay Nayar, C.E.O., Citi Bank of India and Others Vs. A. Annadurai a ...
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
(The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in CC. No.349/2007 dt.05.05.2009. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 17.3.2014. Upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court:) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are the appellants. 2. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties prayed for return of blank cheques and NOC and to refund collection of excess amount and also the compensation of 19,00,000/- with the cost for deficiency and mental agony. 3. The complainant availed the personal loan from the opposite parties 1 to 3 on 20.07.2003 for Rs.1,00,000/- an...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Sharma Vs. H.P. State Cooperative Bank Limited
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 16.07.2013, 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. 2. Admitted facts are that the appellant wanted to set up a printing press in Middle Bazar, Shimla. He prepared a project report and submitted the same to the respondent bank, with the request for sanctioning a loan of Rs.14.00 lacs. He was sanctioned a loan of Rs.8.00 lacs for setting up the printing press and was also allowed working capital limit of Rs.2.00 lacs. Loan amount of Rs.8.00 lacs sanctioned for setting up the press was released in favour of the appellant on 19.04.2008. After the aforesaid amount of money was released in favour of the appellant, he addressed a letter dated 14.05.2008, copy Annexure-3, informing the respondent that he had set up the printing press at Sanjauli...
Tag this Judgment!The Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode Vs. Abdul Razak
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
K. Chandradas Nadar : Judicial Member The appellant was the opposite party in CC.No.118/2011 in the CDRF, Kasaragod. The sole complainant is the respondent. The complainant was working in UAE as domestic cook and was earning monthly salary of 1500 UAE Dirhams. He came to India on 21.09.2010 with the intension to stay here for five months and his visa was valid up to 21.06.2011. For renewing the visa his passport was required to be in printed format as per the Law in UAE. But the entries in his passport was written and he wanted to convert it into printed format. Hence he decided to renew the passport while in India. It is alleged in the complaint that he approached the opposite party Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode, who assured him that the renewed passport in printed format would be issued within 45 days if there was no other disqualification for him in obtaining passport. Accordingly on 13.12.2010 he surrendered the passport and paid Rs.1000/- as passport renewal fees. The polic...
Tag this Judgment!Moothodi Ayathar Vs. the Commissioner, the Kerala Fishermenâandeuro;a ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the complainants in CC.41/08 on the file of CDRF, Ksaragod under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated, February 22, 2013 dismissing their complaint. 2. The case of the complainants as stated in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainants are the parents and dependants of one Kishore who died on February 14, 2007 at about 18.16 hours in a railway accident. The deceased was a member of Kottikulam Kasaba Fishermen Welfare Board which is affiliated with the opposite party No.1, the Kerala Fishermen Welfare Fund Board with membership No.1000. He was also a member of Kottikulam Kasaba Matsya Thozhilali Kshema Vikasana Sahakarana Sangham affiliated with opposite party No.2, Matsyafed with membership No.1518. The death of Kishore was due to accident caused by external violent means and that therefore opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable to compensate the claimants by paying Rs.1,50...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. United India Insurance Company Limited and Another Vs. Vinod Kuma ...
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member: 1. Delay of 21 days in filing of the appeal is condoned. 2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated February 20th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Palwal, whereby complaint filed by complainant-Vinod Kumar Bansal seeking direction to the appellants-opposite parties to pay the benefits of insurance with respect to FAMILY MEDICARE POLICY was accepted. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- œOpposite parties no.1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.37301/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till realization of the amount within 30 days from the receipt of this order to the complainant jointly and severally. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony, harassment alongwith Rs.5500/- litigation expenses jointly and severally.? 3. Vinod Kumar Bansal-complainant (respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!The Assistant Professor, Regional Research Institution, Tamil Nadu Agr ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain reliefs. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the appellants / opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in CC. No.84/2006 dt.26.06.2008. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 14.3.2014. Upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court:) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are the appellants. 2. The respondents/complainant purchased 89Kgms seeds of ground nuts from the 3rd opposite party on 22.12.2005 on the assurance of 1 and 2 opposite parties regarding the yield to the extent of 80% and sowed the seed by engaging labours and making other expenses to the extent of Rs.10,000/- and as assured by the oppos...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Regional Transport Officer Vs. Vijay Dilip Sirsat Through Power ...
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
S.B. Sawarkar, Member: 1. The appeal below is against the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Buldhana dtd.30.11.2010 in consumer complaint No. CC/09/118 granting the complaint and ordering the relief as below that :- i. The O.P.Nos. 1 and 2 shall properly register the sold vehicle TVS Teenz Electric Start. ii. If the registration is not possible then O.P.No.1 should return the purchased cost of vehicle of Rs.30,500/- to the complainant and O.P.No.2 should pay interest upon the above price from 16.06.2008 till final payment @ 9% p.a. iii. O.P.No.2 shall pay the compensation @ Rs.500/- p.m. totaling to Rs.15,000/- to the complainant for causing mental, physical harassment due to carelessness of his officers in performing government duty. iv. After the payment as above, the O.P.No.2 shall recover the same amount from the defaulting officers in equal ratio. v. O.P.No.2 shall pay the complainant Rs.3,000/- as cost of the complaint. vi. The execution of the order above shall be don...
Tag this Judgment!New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Jagdish Rai Mittal and Oth ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.03.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it partly accepted the complaint, filed by the complainants (now respondents) and directed Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 (now appellants No.1 and 2), as under:- œFor the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly allowed against OPs No.1 and 2. OPs No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed :- i) To make payment of an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- to the complainants towards insurance of burglary and house breaking, all risks for jewellery and baggage insurance, with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim till its realization to the complainants. ii) To make payment of an amount of Rs.40,000/- to the complainants as compensation for pain, agony and harassment. iii) To make payment of an amount of Rs.11,000/- to the complainants...
Tag this Judgment!Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. and Another Vs. Pookoya Th ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC 48/2012 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad of u/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order of the Forum directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,94,638/- with interest and a cost of Rs.1000/- being the insurance claim of the complainant for the damage caused to his Toyota Innova car bearing Regn. No.KL-12C-5555 in an accident. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint and as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum in brief is this: Complainant is the owner of the Toyota Innova car bearing Regn. No.KL-12C-5555. On May 30,2011 it met with an accident by dashing against a lorry. PW1, the complainant spent about Rs.3,06,715/- for repairing the car. The car was insured with the opposite party Reliance General Insurance Company by a valid policy during the relevant period. The claim put forwarded by the complainant was repudiated by the opposite par...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »