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.
Priti Kapur Vs. M/S. Country Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This is an Execution Application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) filed by the Decree Holder/Complainant for enforcement of the order dated 24.01.2013 passed by this Commission in Consumer Complaint No.41 of 2012 titled as Priti Kapur Vs. M/s Country Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. and others. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that, initially consumer Complaint No.84 of 2007 was filed by Priti Kaur before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar, which vide its order dated 26.12.2007 accepted the same. Thereafter, against the order dated 26.12.2007, Appeal No.167 of 2008 was filed by the Opposite Parties before the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which was also dismissed with cost. Subsequently, Revision Petition No.885 of 2012 was filed by the Country Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. before the Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter to be referred to as ...
Classic Group of Hotels a Unit of New Age Hotel and Resorts Limited, N ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 16.09.2008 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 222 of 2007, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellants “ opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the respondents “ complainants together with interest @9% p.a. pendente lite and future; Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainants became the members of the Special Holiday Scheme floated by the opposite parties and entered into an agreement with the authorised representative of the opposite party No. 2 on 24.04.2005. The complainants deposited a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards Membership Fee. In the year 2005, the complainants applied with the opposite parties to Shimla To...
SachIn Sharma Vs. Indo European Education Services Pvt. Ltd. and Anoth ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 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 approached the Opposite Parties, for admission in 02 years AP Degree in Multimedia Designer and Communication, in Koge Business College, Koge, Denmark. The said Degree Programme was to start from 01.02.2010 till 28.02.2012. As informed by the Opposite Parties, tuition fees, for the said Degree Programme was DKK 75,000, which included books and CS4 Software, for the 1st academic year. It was stated that besides that, DKK 60,000 for the 2nd academic year was also required to be paid by the complainant. In the Admission Letter dated 26.10.2009 Annexure C-1, it was clearly recited that the fees was non-refundable, and would be forfeited, ...
Savvy Corporation and Others Vs. Consolair and Others
Court: Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
1. In all the above appeals since the order dated 21.5.2007 passed by the District Forum II, Jaipur is under challenge, the same have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. The Savvy Corporation ( hereinafter reffered to as œthe Company?) has prayed for enhamcement of the compensation as also preponing the interest from prior date whereas the Consolair ( hereinafter referred to as œthe Shipping Agency? ) as also Royal Jordanian ( hereinafter referred to as œthe Airlines? ) have challanged the findings and directions of the District Forum against them. The District Forum vide impugned order dated 21.5.2007 while allowing the complaint of the Company has directed the Shipping Agency as also the Airlines to pay a sum of Rs. 4,12,319/- with interest as also other expenses. Mr.Rajesh Maharshi counsel for the Shipping Agency as also Mr.Namish Nigotia counsel for the Airlines while making great stress on two documents filed by the complainant alle...
M/S. Whirlpool of India Limited and Others Vs. Amit Kumar
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.02.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it partly accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 (now three of which are the appellants/Opposite Parties No.2 to 4), as under:- œFor the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed. OPs No.1 to 4 are directed :- i) To make payment of compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of deficiency in service. ii) To make payment of an amount of Rs.5500/- to the complainant towards litigation expenses. iii) The complaint fails against OPs No.5 and 6. This order shall be complied with by OPs No.1 to 4 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OPs No.1 to 4 shall be liable to refund the above said ...
M/S. Sargam Mobiles, Through: Proprietor âandeuro;andldquo; Anil Gehi ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party for seeking direction to the opposite party : (a) pay the remaining claim amount Rs.20,52,458/- (Rs. Twenty Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Eight only); (b) to pay interest @ 12% p/.a. on the aforesaid amount; (c) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental and physical agony and (d) to grant any other relief, which this Commission deems fit. 2. Brief facts of the complaint are that : the complainant is running a shop at Shop No.40, Jairam Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) in the name and style of M/s Sargam Mobiles and is engaged in business of selling of mobiles phones of various companies as well as accessories. The mobiles, memory card etc. kept/stored in the shop were insured with the O.P./Insurance Company under Policy No.450301/11/10/11/00000054 for security against fire and other natural calamities and Po...
Ram Kishan and Others Vs. Chandigarh Administration, Through the Colle ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-15-2014
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 complaint, filed by the complainants (now appellants). 2. In brief, the facts, as alleged by the complainants, are that they purchased a plot, from the Opposite Parties in open auction for a total consideration of Rs.72,30,000/-. It was stated that an initial amount of 10% amounting to Rs.7,23,000/- was paid at the time of bid vide receipt dated 10.12.2003 (Annexure C-2). Further, a sum of Rs.19,00,000/-, being 25% of the amount, was paid as per the following details:- Sr.No.Amount in RupeesDate of Payment1.Rs.7,23,000/-10.12.20032.Rs.2,40,000/-08.01.20043.Rs.8,83,000/-01.03.20044.Rs.54,000/-09.03.2004TotalRs.19,00,000/- It was further stated that no allotment letter was issued by the Opposite Parties, even after one year of payment of the abo...
i.C.i.C.i.Lombard, General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vilakshana Chakradha ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.4.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum Osmanabad allowing consumer complaint directing opponent/appellant insurance company to pay to the complainant amount of insurance Rs.1 lakhs with interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from 7.2.2005 and further amount of Rs.1000/- towards cost of the proceedings. (For the sake of brevity appellant is hereinafter referred as opponent insurance company and respondent as the complainant) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- Late Chakradhar Khawale who was the husband of complainant Smt.Vilakshana was an agriculturist and died in motor-accident on 18.12.2005. The Government of Maharashtra had obtained insurance policy for the farmers under "Farmers Accident Insurance Policy" from opponent insurance company covering risk of Rs.1 lakh for each farmer. Therefore after the death of husband of complainant she submitted insurance claim...
Ajijur Rehman Firoz Ahmad Shaikh and Another Vs. Tara Gulab Gupta and ...
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Both these appeals are listed before me for hearing as per order passed by Honble Justice Mr.R.C. Chavan, President of this Commission in view of provisions of Section 16(1-B)(iii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since there is difference of opinion between two Members who had heard both these appeals. 2. By the order under challenge, Learned District Forum has partly allowed the complaint bearing No.527/2006. Opponent-Ajijur Rehman Firoz Ahmad Shaikh is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,22,500/- to the complainant towards medical bills of treatment. He was further directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards mental pain and agony and amount of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the litigation. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 06/03/2010 passed by District Forum, Thane in consumer complaint No.527/2006, appellant/original opponent-Ajijur Rehman Firoz Ahmad Shaikh has preferred appeal bearing No.390/2010. Being dissatisfied ...
Tilak Nagar Royal Co.Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. M/S. Vinayak C ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
P.B. Joshi, Judicial Member: 1. Complainant is a co-operative housing Society having registration No.MUM/MHADB/W-HSG(TC)/10434/1999-2000, situated at Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai 400 089. The Society consists of total 91 members including 36 old members and 65 new members and also 10 shops on the ground floor. The Society has four wings, A, B, C Aand D of which A and D wing has 28 flats each (total 56 flats) while B Wing has 14 flats and C Wing has 21 flats. The Opponent No.1 is a partnership firm in the business of builders and developers. The Opponents Nos.2, 3 and 4 are the partners of the said firm. On 10.05.2002 a Development Agreement was entered into between the Complainant and the Opponents. Rectification Deed was executed on 26.06.2002. Deed of Confirmation was executed on 07.08.2003. After reconstruction, the possession was given to different flat holders in the year 2005-2006 but legal possession was not given. No occupancy certificate was obtained and no completion certif...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »