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.
Parakoti Kasim Vs. the Guntur Women Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Gunt ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) The appellants approached the District Forum and filed a complaint stating that there was deficiency of service on the part of the first opposite party. However, as there was a delay of 302 days, they filed I.A.No.54/2013 seeking direction to condone the said delay. The District Forum after notice to the opposite parties and also after hearing both the parties, refused to condone the said delay and dismissed the said application by its order dated 27-5-2013. The said order is challenged by the unsuccessful complainant. Heard. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Bhaskara Rao, we are of the view that the said delay of 302 days can be condoned and the matter can be remanded to the District Forum for reconsideration on merits. However, we are unable to do the same for the reason that the property which is in question was already sold by opposite party No.1 in a public auction conducted under A.P.Co-ope...
Biswajit Manna, West Bengal Vs. United Bank of India Gariahat Branch E ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
Tarapada Gangopadhyay, Member, J. The present Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order no. 29 dt. 10.10.12 of the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata, passed in CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 200/2009, dismissing the Complaint. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, which are relevant and pertinent for adjudication of the case, are set out hereinafter. The Appellant/Complainant, accompanied by other 10 fellow travellers including two children, booked four rooms with UBI Gariahat Branch Employees Holiday Home and Welfare Society at their Rajgir Holiday Home, Keshabasram by name, for the period from 24.3.2008 to 26.12.2008 against charges of ` 3,000/-. After reaching the said Holiday Home on 24.12.2008 the Complainant found the condition of the Holiday Home deplorable, and met with lack of services like absence of light in the staircase, big openings on the door panels, leakage of water from upper floor in the bathroom accompanied by unhygienic condition etc. Despit...
United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Divisional Manager ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Apr-16-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 15.05.2010 passed by the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal in consumer complaint No. 04 of 2009, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant “ insurance company to pay compensation of Rs.65,401/- to the respondent “ complainant; Rs.2,000/- towards special damages and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses, in all, Rs.69,401/- within a month from the date of the order, failing which the above amount was directed to carry interest @7% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle No. UP07-K-9803. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant “ United India Insurance Company Limited for the period from 15.10.2007 to 14.10.2008 for sum of ...
Dr.Sanjeev Lakhanlal Joshi Vs. Ku. Bhumika Sujit Sarshende(Rai) Throug ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This is an application made by the original opposite party in a complaint bearing CC No. 162/2013 for transfer of the said complaint. This transfer application is opposed by the non applicant No.1/original complainant by filing reply. We have therefore heard Mr. J. Vora, the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant and Mr. Kariya, the learned Advocate of the non applicant No.1. We have also perused the documents produced by both parties. The non applicant No. 2 is a formal party. 2. The transfer of the complaint is sought on main two grounds. (1) The observation made by the District Consumer Forum, Yavatmal in an interim order dated 26/08/2013 passed in aforesaid complaint, the applicant has been condemned by the said Forum without being any trial and (2) Advocate Mr. Darne engaged by the complainant in that complaint acted as a counsel in Writ Petition No. 82/2010 for Mr. A.N. Somwanshi, who is one of the Member of the aforesaid Forum, hearing the...
Rentachintala Chandrasekhar and Another Vs. M/S. Aliens Developers Pri ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) This complaint is filed through General Power of Attorney Holder U/s.17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs.23,06,603/- paid by them together with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of respective payments till realization together with compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- totalling to Rs.48,54,857.25/-. The case of the complainants is that they are currently residing at USA and believing the representations made by the opposite parties, they intended to purchase a residential flat and entered into an agreement of sale with the opposite parties on 26-3-2008 to purchase Flat No.942 Station -7 on 9th floor having super built up area of 1687 sq ft. together with 36.27 sq. yds. of undivided share and two car parking space and the said flat was booked on 16-10-2006 by paying an advance of Rs.1 lakh for a consideration of Rs.44,06,421/-. The complainants submit that out of the total consideration of Rs.44...
Unit Trust of India Now Uti Amc Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vinayak Arora
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
S.C. Jain, Member: 1) This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dt. 15.03.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, (District New Delhi) in Complaint Case No. 357/2007. 2) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent had applied for the U.T.I. EQUTIY FUND i.e. MASTER GAIN-1992 for 1800 units through application No. 7239066 alongwith cheque No. 039207 dt. 30.04.1992 for Rs. 18,000/-, which was from the account of Mrs. Hansa Arora the Mother of the complainant/respondent. The cheque was drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Paschim Enclave, New Delhi-110041 and was in favour of the appellant/OP-1. The cheque was cleared from the account on 18.05.1992, which was clearly reflected in the statement of account filed, the complainant/respondent also filed a certificate issued by State Bank of Mysore dt. 16.12.1993 mentioning therein the clearance of aforesaid cheque from the account of Mrs. Hansa Arora. 3) The complainant/respondent stat...
Laximibai Ranganath Fondekar and Others Vs. M/S. Ashwini Builders and ...
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
Jagdish Prabhudesai, Member: 1. By this Order we shall dispose of the present application for condonation of delay filed by the Appellants herein at the time of presenting the Appeal before this Commission against the Orders dated 20.8.2013 and 4.7.2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Goa, at Margao in Complaint No. 9/2000. 2. At the outset, we make it clear that we are only concerned about the maintainability of the aforesaid application for condonation of delay and hence we refrain from passing any comments on merits of the case. 3. It is necessary to state some brief facts as under : I. It is stated in the application that the Appellants had filed a formal application dated 25.10.2012 in the Complaint No. 9/2000 before the Ld. District Forum at South Goa for bringing legal heirs of the deceased Complainant on record while the Complainant expired on 12.9.2010. The said application was dismissed by the Learned Forum and the said complaint was also dismissed on...
Reliance General Inshurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Madhukar Natthuji Selokar
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 3/9/2009 passed in CC No. 37/2009 by the District Forum, Gondia by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainant, as set out in the complaint, in brief is that he had obtained insurance policy from the Opposite Party (for short OP) to cover the risk of his vehicle for the period from 17/3/2008 to 16/3/2009. The said vehicle was stolen away in between the night of 2/7/2008 and 3/7/2008. The complainant, therefore, lodged complaint with the police and made claim to the OP. The OP repudiated the claim on untenable ground that there is a breach of policy condition as the vehicle was used for tourist purpose. Therefore, complainant claimed Rs.3,71,500/- as insured declared value towards loss of that vehicle. They also claimed interest @12% p.a. over that amount and cost of the complaint. 3. The OP remained absent before the Forum though duly served with notice. Therefore, the Forum below, proceeded exparte aga...
Tdi Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Bahri
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
N.P. Kaushik, Member(Judicial): Present appeal is directed against the order dated 4.4.2013 vide which the District Consumer Redressal Forum (V), North West District, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi passed the following directions: œPay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 6,58,500/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit by the complainant till payment. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs of litigation. The above order shall be complied with by the OP within 30 days from the date of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment. If OP fails to comply with the order within 30 days, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.? Facts of the case are not in dispute. The Respondent, Shri Rakesh Bahri got booked a residential flat with the appellant on 23.8.2005. He paid Rs. 3 lacs as earnest money by way of a cheque ...
National Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager Vs. Vij ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.12.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.262/2013, whereby the complaint of the respondent / complainant, has been partly allowed. 2. The appellant/O.P. has preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 07.12.2013, passed by the District Forum and has also filed application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appeal is belated by 63 days. 3. Shri C.S. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/O.P. prayed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal on the basis of grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant/O.P. and he seeks an opportunity to argue the matter on merits. 4. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant on the application for condonation of delay and have also perused the record of the District Forum. 5. In Rev...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »