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.
Vijaya Vs. Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Life Insuranc ...
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 she filed this appeal questioning the order dated 30-4-2013 made in S.R.No.2556/2012 on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad whereby the District Forum dismissed the said petition stating that it has no power of review. Smt.Vijaya, who is the wife of late Sekhar, filed a complaint in C.C.No.175/2011 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy District against the insurance company claiming the insurance amount on account of death of her husband by name, Mr.Sekhar. The matter was entrusted to Mr.K.N.V.Radha Krishna, Advocate to appear on her behalf. The insurance company filed its written version and at the stage when the matter was coming up for affidavit evidence of the complainant, Smt.Vijaya, the said advocate appearing for her, met with an accident and was totally bed ridden and in those circumstances, he could not appear before the District Forum and the District Forum dismissed the said complain...
M/S. Karuna Construction, a Proprietorship Firm Represented by Its Pro ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
Mridula Roy, Member. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.09.2012 passed by Ld. District Forum, North 24 Pgs. in C.C. Case No. 224/2011 allowing the same on contest with cost of Rs.10,000/- against the O.P. No. 1 and exparete against O.P. No. 2 without cost, directing the O.P. No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs.6,36,666/- along with interest @ 10% per annum over the amount since 16.12.2005 till full realization, further directing the O.P. No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards damage for mental pain and agony cost by the O.P. No. 1 to the Complainant, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards penalty for adopting unfair trade practice which was to be deposited with the S.C.W.F., furthermore directing the O.P. No. 1 to complete entire unfinished work of the entire multistoried building including the flat of the Complainant at once and to handover NOC issued by the local municipality to the Complainant, directing the O.P. No. 1 to comply the entire decree within one month fro...
Ramakant Dani Vs. Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Durg Branch and Anot ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order, dated 11.06.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum?), in Complaint Case No.211/2011, whereby the complaint of the appellant / complainant seeking compensation on account of loss to the crop, which was insured under National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, has been dismissed on the ground that as per declaration given by the appellant/complainant in the application form for obtaining agricultural credit limit, his land was irrigated and therefore no compensation was payable. 2. In nut shell, the facts of the case are that the appellant / complainant is a farmer of Village Motinpur, Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.) and he was having Kisan Credit Card and was enjoying credit facilities upto extent of Rs.3,00,000/- on the basis of that Kisan Credit Card. It is also not in dispute that as per National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, all persons, who have been grante...
P. Alekhya Vs. Bharat Institute of Technology and Science for Women, R ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) The complainant approached the District Forum, Rangareddy District and filed the complaint, C.C.No.176/2012, against the opposite party, which is a Engineering College, claiming refund of the amounts paid by her i.e. admission fee, examination fee and fare towards transportation to a tune of Rs.40,370/-, Rs. 9 lakhs towards mental agony and Rs.10 lakhs towards compensation for loss of an academic year. The District Forum having considered the entire evidence on record, by its order dated 20-5-2013 negated her contentions, but, however, directed the Engineering College to return the transfer certificates and other certificates to the complainant/appellant without collecting any fee. The said order is questioned in this appeal. The brief facts that led to the filing of the complaint in brief are as follows: The appellant took admission into the college of the opposite party thinking that it is a college meant for women only and the college ma...
Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited and Another ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 21.12.2012, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No.68/2012. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the respondent/complainant and directed the appellants/OPs to pay within a month from the date of the order a sum of Rs.3,69,300/- (Rs.Three Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand and Three Hundred Only) to the respondent/complainant, along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 05.06.2012 till date of payment. The District Forum has further directed the appellants/OPs to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- as compensation for mental, physical agony and financial inconvenience and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the respondent /complainant before the District Forum are : that the respondent/complainant purchased the Highwa Tru...
Union of India Through Secretary, New Delhi and Another Vs. Dalvir Sin ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 20.09.1999 passed by the District Forum, Pauri Garhwal in consumer complaint No. 56 of 1998, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties to immediately set right the telephone connection No. 3130 of the complainant and not to recover any amount from the complainant w.e.f. June, 1995 till the telephone is set right and the opposite parties were also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant together with interest @12% p.a. w.e.f. June, 1995 till payment 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 is a medical practitioner and in the year 1994, he had taken telephone connection No. 3130 from the telecom department. The said telephone was working properly. However, in June, 1995, th...
Mohammad Yusuf Raza Vs. Indore Transport Agency
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.02.2013, passed District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum?) in Complaint Case No.357/2010. By the impugned order the learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the appellant/complainant. 2. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that a Video Camera of Sony Company, valuing Rs.1,40,000/-, was booked by the appellant/complainant with the respondent/Transport Agency for its transport from Nagpur to Raipur, in the form of a parcel and requisite charges were paid by the appellant/complainant to the respondent/O.P. The allegation of the appellant/complainant against the respondent / O.P. was that the said parcel was not delivered at its destination and thus, deficiency in service has been committed by the respondent/O.P., so appellant/complainant, is entitled to get value of the article, along with other amount of compensation from the respondent/O.P. 3. The r...
Kalyani Mukherjee, Kolkata Vs. Sankar Mukherjee, Kolkata and Another
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-2014
Debasis Bhattacharya, Member Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 18.09.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum, South 24 Parganas in Case No. 115/2012, by which the prayer petition of the Revisionist for impleading her a party in the case has been rejected, giving rise for her revision. In such prayer petition, she made out that the Complainant claimed himself as an owner of two-third share in such premises by his alleged purchase, which property is still unpartitioned and sub judice in the Civil Court at Howrah, and thus hit the principle of lis pendens. The Complainant is still a tenant and enjoying uninterrupted supply of electricity for his tenanted premises from the meter standing in the name of Maya Devi. He initiated T.S. No. 2307/2010 before the Ld. 2nd Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Alipore on the same cause of action and reliefs and obtained an ex parte interim order dated 11.08.2010, against which she preferred Misc. Appeal No. 486/2010, which w...
Garg Domestic and International Packers and Movers Vs. Dr. Swapan Kuma ...
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 18.12.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant), as under:- œIn view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed as under :- (i) to pay the amount of Rs.7,02,139/- as assessed by the surveyor in his report (C-11) (ii) to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. (iii) to pay Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses This order be complied with by the opposite party, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.? 2. The facts, in...
Md. AllauddIn Khan, Kolkata Vs. South Dum Dum Municipality Represented ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
Mridula Roy, Member. No. 2/08.04.2014. The record is taken up for passing order on the point of admission. The Complainant in his petition of complaint has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps stating that he, being a businessman dealing with scrap materials, submitted quotation with the O.P. “ Municipality for purchasing scrap and being highest bidder deposited a sum of Rs.52,75,000/- with the O.P. Subsequently, the O.P. by a letter dated 02.04.2012 asked the Complainant to lift the scrap but when the Complainant went to lift the scrap the employee of the O.P. did not allow the Complainant to lift the scrap and thereafter, sold the said scrap to third party on 05.03.2014 by auction which caused loss of business, financial loss, loss of goodwill, loss of interest and lossof reputation for which the Complainant prayed for direction before this Commission upon the O.Ps to refund the price of the scrap along with interest @ 18% per annum and Rs.46,83,000/- towards c...
- ‹ Prev
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- Next ›
- Last »