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.
Sansar Chand Awasthi Vs. H.P. Urban Development Authority Limited
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-11-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Present revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.12.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby prayer made by the revision petitioner in execution petition, for award of interest on the amount ordered to be refunded, in the order passed in the main complaint, has been rejected. 2. Revision petitioner applied for allotment of a flat. He paid the price of flat. Area of the flat, which was agreed to be delivered to the revision petitioner, was 59.77 sq. meters. However, when possession of the flat was ultimately given to the revision petitioner, it was noticed that area was short by 4.91 sq. meters. A complaint was filed by the revision petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent to refund the price equivalent to the shortfall in the area. He also sought compensation and litigation cost. 3. Learned District Forum ordered refund of price charged for deficient area, i.e. 4.91 sq. meters,...
Andhra Pradesh Rajiv Swagruha Corporation, Rep. by Its S. Rama Rao-gen ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) A.P. Rajiv Swagruha Corporation is the appellant and this appeal is directed against the orders dated 03-6-2013 made in C.C.No.3/2012 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy District whereby the District Forum awarded interest at the rate of 18% p.a. as claimed by the complainant i.e respondent herein. The brief facts which led the complainant to approach the District Forum are as under: The appellants are selling flats under Rajiv Swagruha scheme and the respondent/complainant paid processing fee of Rs.5,000/- along with an application for two bed room flat. Pursuant there to, the appellant addressed a letter on 05-11-2008 informing the respondent that he was allotted a flat and the tentative cost of the said flat would be Rs.13,00,000/- and the said amount should be paid in three instalments. According to the complainant, he paid the entire consideration as agreed upon but the opposite parties have not come forward to get the flat regi...
Mohd. Irshad Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divis ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed by the complainant against the order dated 24.08.2012 passed by the District Forum, Nainital in consumer complaint No. 115 of 2010, whereby the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint filed by the complainant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant “ Mohd. Irshad was the registered owner of Tata Indica car No. UA04-D-8686. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite party “ United India Insurance Company Limited for the period from 15.01.2010 to 14.01.2011. On 21.01.2010, the insured vehicle met with an accident at Pangoot “ Kilbary Road, Nainital and got damaged to the extent of 75%. The complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company and completed all the formalities. The insurance company, however, vide their letter dated 07.07.2010 repudiated the claim of the complainan...
The Branch Manager, Lic of India Warangal-1 and Others Vs. Parikirala ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) The Life Insurance Corporation of India is the appellant and this appeal is directed against C.C.No.26/2012 dated 28-6-2013 on the file of District Forum, Warangal whereby the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh to the complainant along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 02-12-2011 till the date of realization together with Rs.1000/- towards legal expenditure and Rs.1000/- towards costs. The brief facts as per the complaint narrated by the complainant are as under: The complainants mother one Parkirala Sammakka, during her life time obtained Jeevan Saral Policy bearing No.688890913 for Rs.1,00,000/- from opposite party No.1 commencing from 15-3-2010 and the complainant is the nominee under the said policy. While so, the said Sammakka died on 21-4-2011 due to heart attack and the complainant made a claim to opposite party No.1 in May, 2011 and ...
Rasul AmIn Mujawar and Others Vs. Shriniwas Construction Co., Miraj, T ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The Complainants have filed present complaint u/sec 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by alleging deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Opponents. 2. The Complainant Nos.1 and 2 are the real brothers. Complainant Nos.3 and 4 are their sisters. Property bearing C.T.S. No.5050/A-1 (Old CTS No.5051 and 5051-A/1) admeasuring 224.5 sq.meters situated in municipal limits of Sangli Miraj and Kupwad City Municipal Corporation at Peer Nalsaheb Chowk, is the ancestral property of the Complainants. Opponent No.1 is construction company while the Opponent Nos.2 to 4 are its partners. The Opponent No.1 Company is engaged mainly in the building construction and development of residential apartments and trade complexes. In the month of January, 1995, Opponent Nos.2 to 4 made enquiry about the ancestral property of the Complainants. The Opponents gave proposal of development of the property. The Opponents assured to give reasonable con...
Mohd. Irshad Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divis ...
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed by the complainant against the order dated 24.08.2012 passed by the District Forum, Nainital in consumer complaint No. 115 of 2010, whereby the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint filed by the complainant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant “ Mohd. Irshad was the registered owner of Tata Indica car No. UA04-D-8686. The said vehicle was insured with the opposite party “ United India Insurance Company Limited for the period from 15.01.2010 to 14.01.2011. On 21.01.2010, the insured vehicle met with an accident at Pangoot “ Kilbary Road, Nainital and got damaged to the extent of 75%. The complainant lodged the claim with the insurance company and completed all the formalities. The insurance company, however, vide their letter dated 07.07.2010 repudiated the claim of the complainan...
Rajeev Sharma, Proprietor Vs. Somaya Impex Private Limited
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 15.01.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondent, has been dismissed as not maintainable, with the finding that Courts at Delhi alone have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and that on merits also, the case of the appellant is not proved. 2. Appellant filed a complaint alleging that he had purchased a Non-Woven Bag Printing Machine from the respondent, by paying a sum of Rs.3,31,500/-. He alleged that the machine, ordered for, was of single phase, but the machine supplied was of three phase. This error, according to the complainant, was noticed by the engineers of the respondent itself, when they came to install the machine and they assured to replace it by a new machine of single phase. Complainant alleged that despite repeated requests and notices...
M/S. Duncans Industries and Others Vs. Mrinal Kanti Das and Others
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President (Oral): 1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar in consumer complaint No. 107 of 2006. By the order impugned, the District Forum has ex-parte allowed the consumer complaint against the opposite parties and directed the opposite parties to pay sum of Rs.34,000/- to the complainant together with interest @14.50% from October, 2002 till payment; Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.34,000/- with the opposite party No. 1 “ M/s Duncans Industries, Kolkata on 21.12.2000 for a period of three years under a fixed deposit scheme carrying interest @14.50% p.a. The interest was to be paid after every three months. The interest was paid to the complainant upto September, 2002, but the...
Bhpv Employees Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Limited Vs. Konda ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
GopalaKrishna Tamada, President B.H.P.V.Employees Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Limited is the appellant and this appeal is directed against C.C.No.369/2011 dated 29-3-2012 on the file of District Forum-I Visakhapatnam whereby the District Forum passed the following order: œIn the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay the complainant Rs10,000/- with 9% interest p.a. from 08-6-2007 to till the date of payment and also to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- with 12% interest p.a. from 13-7-2002 to 13-7-2008 and to pay 9% interest p.a. on Rs.10,000/- from 14-7-2008 to till the date of payment. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation besides costs of Rs.3,000/-. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/-? The brief facts as narrated by the complainant in the complaint are as under: The complainants father is an employee working in B.H.P.V. and has become a depositor of the said credit society and deposited an amount of R...
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Senior Divisional Mana ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 26.10.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by respondent-Shanti Negi, has been allowed and the appellant has been ordered to pay a sum of Rs.1,45,875/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum by way of insurance money, Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,500/- as litigation expenses. 2. Appellant owned a Mahindra Pickup, which was registered as a transport vehicle for carriage of goods. The same was insured with the respondent for the period from 19.10.2008 to 18.10.2009. On 17.12.2008, vehicle met with an accident and was damaged. Intimation of accident was given to the respondent, who deputed a Surveyor for assessing the loss. Loss was assessed at Rs.2,19,500/-. Wreck value was assessed at Rs.50,000/-....
- ‹ Prev
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Next ›
- Last »