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.
Prakash Chand Bansal Vs. the Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant has assailed, through the present appeal, order dated 22.10.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirmour at Nahan, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, has been dismissed with the finding that the insured vehicle, in respect of which insurance claim had been lodged, was being driven by a person, not possessing a valid and effective driving licence, at the time when the accident took place. 2. Appellant owned a Maruti Pickup, bearing registration No. HP-71-0319, which was registered as light goods vehicle. Vehicle was insured with the respondents for the period from 28.08.2008 to 27.08.2009. It met with an accident on 02.11.2008 and was extensively damaged. Claim was lodged with the respondents. The same was repudiated on the ground that the person, who was driving the vehicle, possessed a licence to drive only a car or a je...
M/S. Narayan Construction, Hooghly Vs. Ishani Dey and Others
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Chinsurah, Hooghly in case no.CC 25 of 2011 allowing the complaint with cost of Rs.5,000/- and directing the OPs to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the flat in question in favour of the Petitioners as per terms and conditions of the agreement, to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant within one month from the date of order, in default interest @ 9% p.a. will accrue on the said amount till realisation. The case of the Complainants/Respondents, in short, is that OP No.3 is the sole proprietor of the partnership firm, namely, M/s Narayan Construction. OP Nos.1 and 2 are the owners who executed a power of attorney in favour of Narayan Kangsabanik to construct the building. The OP No.3 constructed the multistoried building. Late Sukhendra Nath Dey, the predecessor-in-interest of the Complainants, during his li...
Dev Raj Vs. the Reliance General Insurance Company
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 08.08.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirmour at Nahan, whereby appellants complaint, which he filed, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been dismissed, with the observation that the same is pre-mature. 2. Appellant owned a motorcycle, which was insured in the sum of `27,000/- with the respondent for the period from 20.12.2008 to 19.12.2009. Motorcycle had allegedly been stolen, on the night, intervening 23rd/24th June, 2009. Report was lodged at Police Station, Nahan, on 24.06.2009, with regard to the theft. Intimation of accident was given to the respondent also. However, insurance claim was not settled and, therefore, the appellant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction to the respondent to pay insurance money and also to com...
Venkatesh Narayan Prabhu Moni Vs. Nitesh Bhadu Naik
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20/02/2014 of the Lr. North Goa District Forum at Porvorim.2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose off this appeal. 3. The Appellant/OP in CC No. 74/10 is a builder carrying on his business in the name and style of M/s. Prabhu Constructions and has put up a project known as Prabhu Estates at Duler, Mapusa, consisting of about 90 flats. 4. The Respondent/Complainant has purchased from the Appellant/OP vide agreement dated 14/02/05 a flat No. 4 in building D-3 and the Respondent/Complainant was put in possession of the same on 28/03/05. It appears that no Society could be formed within a period of two years, of the flat owneRs.The complainant, therefore, filed the complaint against the OP on 5/8/10. Since then a sale deed has been executed in favour of the complainant by the OP and presumably after 12/09/12, and, therefore the first relief sought for by the complainant is rendered infructous. 5. The second ...
Rajesh Vs. Abhijeet G. Paranjape
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 21/04/2007 passed in Consumer Complaint bearing CC No. 94/2005 by the District Consumer Forum, Akola by which the complaint has been dismissed and opportunity was given to the original complainant to seek remedy by approaching any other Forum or Court. 2. The case of the complainants as set out in the complaint in brief is that they hired service of the opposite party (for short O.P.) to provide technical service and to commercially guide to them (complainants) for construction of their new house by demolishing their old house. No agreement about hiring of the said services was entered into both the parties as the O.P. had misrepresented the complainants that he would get constructed their house properly and no such agreement in writing is necessary. The concerned bank also granted loan to the complainants for construction of their house. However, the O.P. made incorrect measurement of the construction w...
A. Sri Hari Kumar Raju Vs. the Managing Director Icici Bank Ltd., âan ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) The complainant is the appellant and he filed this appeal against the orders dated 05-8-2013 made in C.C.No.627/2012 on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad whereby the District Forum awarded only an amount of Rs.5,000/- as against the claim of Rs.25,000/- for each day delay in delivery of documents towards compensation totalling Rs.17,78,084. The brief facts are that the complainant availed a housing loan from the opposite parties and the entire amount was paid by him on 06-1-2012. At the time when he borrowed the said loan amount, he deposited certain documents towards security. As he paid the entire loan amount, he requested the opposite parties to return the said documents, but however the said documents were delivered only on 22-2-2012 i.e. after a lapse of 45 days. In those circumstances, the complainant alleged that he suffered mental agony and he is entitled for compensation and damages and hence he approached the District Forum...
Karnail Singh and Another Vs. M/S. Emaar Mgf Land Limited, Through Its ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. The facts, in brief, are that allured by the assurances of the representative of the Opposite Party, with regard to the salient features, like 100 ft wide road connected with Chandigarh, high security, black-topped wide internal roads, drainage, sewerage, 24 hours water and electricity supply, street lighting, green belts, shopping complex etc. etc., in its (Opposite Party), project, under the name and style of œMohali Plots at Mohali Hills?, Sector 104, Mohali, Punjab, the complainants decided to purchase a plot therein (project of the Opposite Party). It was stated that the representative of the Opposite Party, also assured the complainants that the development activity, at the site was in full swing, and if they booked the plot, the possession thereof, complete in all respects, would be handed over to them, within a period of 18 months, from the date of execution of the Plot Buyer`s Agreement. It was further stated that it was also assured by...
Renu Devi Vs. Lic Housing Finance Limited
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.01.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-1, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainants (now appellants). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainants, in order to purchase a house, entered into an agreement with the vendor, and, consequently, applied for home loan, to Opposite Party No.1, through Opposite Party No.2, being its (Opposite Party No.1) agent. The complainants submitted all the documents, alongwith a cheque, in the sum of Rs.1103/-, as processing fee, on 09.05.2013 (infact 09.05.2012, as is evident from page 23 of the District Forum file). Opposite Party No.1, after preliminary inspection of documents, approved the housing loan, in principle, as per the terms and conditions mentioned, in the letter dated 15.05.2005 (infact 15.05.2012), Annexure C-3. Accordingly, the...
Superintendent of Post Offices and Others Vs. Vikesh Dogra, Proprietor ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 12.11.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against the appellants by respondent-Vikesh Dogra, has been allowed and a direction given to the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.42,470/-, on account of value of the contents of postal parcel within 30 days, failing which to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint, to the date of payment of the aforesaid amount of money, and also to pay Rs.3,000/-, as compensation and Rs.2,000/-, as costs. 2. Respondent-Vikesh Dogra, filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that on 13.08.2012, he booked a parcel, addressed to T.V.C. Sky Shop Limited, Thane, Mumbai, with Head Post Postmaster, Post Office Nerchowk (app...
Vasantrao Kale, Wani Vs. Mohd. Akhtar Abdul Rashid and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
S.B. Sawarkar, Member: 1. This appeal takes an exception to the order passed by District Forum Yavatmal in CC No.304/2005 dtd.19.04.2006. By the above order the Forum granted the complaint of the complainant against O.P.Nos. 1 and 2 and directed the O.P. to return the price of the defective sowing machine of Rs.5,200/- @ 6% p.a. from the date of payment for purchase to the date of returning the amount to the complainant within a span of 30 days, if not paid, to pay interest @ 9% p.a. penal interest till the date of payment. Pay Rs.3,000/- for mental and physical harassment of the complainant and Rs.500/- as cost within 30 days from the date of order. 2. The facts leading to above order are that the complainant Mhommad Akhtar filed a complaint on 09.11.2005 before the Forum that he is a farmer and is engaged in farming with modern implements. The aforesaid O.P.No.1 Shri Vasantrao Kale, Wani was making an advertisement of an efficient sowing machine and he therefore, contacted O.P.No.1 w...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »