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.
G. Bhagavat Singh Vs. K.L. Francis and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC.641/11 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated, March 29, 2012 closing the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- The appellants/opposite parties are husband and wife. They sold 1.31 Ares of land belonging to the 2nd opposite party to the complainant for Rs.7 lakhs on conditions that the complainant assigns the contract for constructing the house in the property of the opposite parties for Rs.28.lakhs. Ext.A1 is the said agreement dated, May 12, 2011 executed between the complainant and the opposite parties. On that day itself PW1 paid Rs.10 lakhs to the opposite parties. PW1 paid Rs.8 lakhs on June 08, 2011. The sale deed was executed on August 23, 2011. On July 16, 2011 the first opposite party requested to release Rs.2 lakhs, but th...
The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Kolkata Vs. Gopa ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
J. Bag, ld. Member. The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 04.02.13 of the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Pgs, in CC Case No.68 of 2012, whereby, the complaint was allowed on contest with cost against OP No.1 and dismissed on contest without cost against OP No.2. The complaint case, as filed before the Ld. Forum below, was as follows: The Complainant runs his business as the proprietor of Maa Durga Jewellery. The said business is hypothecated to the United Bank of India , Baruipur, Chowdhury Bazar Branch, Baruipur . He obtained a Burglary Insurance (Policy No. OG 10401000002894) on 05.09.2005 and the said policy was, after renewal, valid from 07. 09. 2009 to 06.09.2010. The policy was issued for Stocks (Mfg.andSale of Gold / Similar Ornaments). Some anomalies being detected by the Complainant in regard to the correct address to be recorded in the policy and the items of risk to be covered as Stock-in -Trade and Stock-in-Transit in place of Stoc...
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Department of Posts India Ve ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
R. Regupathi, President (Open Court). 1. Opposite parties, before the District Forum, are the appellant herein. 2. The complainant alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, in not delivering the cover containing the original certificates alongwith demand draft for Rs.6500/-, to be delivered to Annamalai University, filed a complaint before the District Forum. 3. The District Forum on perusal of the entire records, and on evaluating the materials came to the just conclusion that the opposite parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs.15000/- towards loss of original certificates alongwith demand draft, alongwith compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. 4. Before this commission, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the non-delivery is neither willful nor wanton,. Further submitted that the awarding of compensation of Rs.15000/-, for the delay in settling the claim amount, is on the higher side. 5. On perusal of the records, and on hearing of the rival ...
Axis Bankl Ltd., Alappuzha Branch, Mullackal, Alappuzha, R/by Its Bran ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is a reference made under section 14(2) A read with section 18 of Consumer Protection Act. A Bench consisting of Members Smt.Radha and Smt.Santhamma Thomas disagreed and Member Smt.Santhamma Thomas dismissed the appeal while Member Smt.Radha allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. 2. The appeal was filed by the opposite party in CC.132/08 challenging the order of the Forum dated, November 30, 2011 directing the opposite party bank to return to the complainant Rs.15,394/- being the amount illegally debited from the account of the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.5000/-. 3. The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:- Complainant is an ATM card holder of the opposite party, M/s Axis Bank Limited. In May 30, 2008 complainant withdrew a total amount of Rs.49,500/- by 4 times. On June 02, 2008 the opposite party bank illegally debited Rs.15,394/- from the account o...
Blue Moon Communications and Credit Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Thomas Mathew
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. This appeal has been filed by the OP in CC No. 109/2010, and, is directed against order dated 11/11/13 by which the OP has been directed to refund the sum of Rs.1 lac with interest at the rate of 9% from 18/11/10 till payment and the complainant has been directed to return the furniture, on refund being made. 2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose off this appeal. 3. The complainant is an M. Sc and holds a Ph.D. The complainant purchased a new flat in August 2010 and visited the establishment of the OP on 15/09/10 and saw 3 or 4 types of bedroom sets and chose what is known as Atessa double bed with storage, two Atessa bedside tables, one Atessa wardrobe, one Atessa dressing table and one mattress viceroy plus and paid a sum of Rs.1 lac. The furniture ordered by the complainant was based on the sample exhibited in the showroom of the OP. The furniture was delivered to the complainant on 18/9/10 alongwith some complementary items such as two pillow...
indigo Airlines N.S.C. Bose International Airport, Kolkata Vs. Kumar S ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-2014
Kalidas Mukherjee, President. This order relates to hearing on the petition for condonation of delay of 211 days.In the petition for condonation of delay it has been stated that the Appellant does not have any office at the Kolkata Airport and merely a kiosk where a few employees are posted for the purpose of looking after, inter alia, passengers boarding and disembarking. The Appellant was very much surprised on 22 February, 2013 when it was informed by one of its said employees at the Kolkata Airport that a letter dated February 15, 2013 addressed to Indigo Airlines from the Respondent had been served upon them at the Kolkata Airport including a copy of an order dated February 7, 2010 passed by the Learned District Forum, Barasat, North 24-Parganas. Thereafter the Appellant contacted the Ld. Advocate and after taking certified copy filed this appeal. The complaint case bearing no.370 of 2012 was allowed ex parte. It has been stated that on enquiry the Appellant came to learn that ...
M/S Baba Loknath Ice Factory of Vill âandeuro;andldquo; Piragachha, K ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
Debasis Bhattacharya, Member. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.10.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas in Case No. 323/2010, by which the complaint case has been allowed in part on contest against the contesting OPs but without any cost on the ground that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, who have been directed to take such steps for checking the meter of the Complainants factory to satisfy the Complainant that the meter in dispute is not defective and if its found defective in that case OPs shall have to re-assess the consumption bill and shall have to re-issue fresh bill but if it would be found the meter is not defective after examination in that case OPs shall have to follow the rules for realization of the arrear bill from the Complainant. But, all other reliefs have been refused on the ground that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide such matter when State Electricity Regulatory commission has assessed the tariff. ...
Dalbir Singh, Gurdaspur Vs. Punjab National Bank, Gurdaspur and Anothe ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
Baldev Singh Sekhon, Presiding Member. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 27.11.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which his complaint against the respondents/opposite parties was dismissed. 2. The facts, as necessary for the disposal of this appeal, are that the complainant, alongwith his wife, Manjit Kaur, was holding a joint saving bank account No.8538/17 with opposite party No.1. A joint FDR No.359715 for Rs.60,000/- was also got obtained having maturity date 24.6.1993. He got this FDR renewed on 30.6.1993 for next six months with effect from 24.6.1993. The joint holder of the FDR, Manjit Kaur died on 12.5.2000. The case of the complainant is that he was working in the Punjab Police, and therefore, could not contact opposite party No.1 for renewal/withdrawal of the maturity proceeds on 24.12.1993. He contacted the opposite parties for release of the payment ...
The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs. M/S Rajkamal Transport Co., Rep. ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
Oral Order: (Thota Ashok Kumar, Member) 1. The opposite party is the appellant. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder. 2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant insured his lorry bearing registration No.AP 10W 2610 with the opposite party vide policy bearing No.430011/31/2012/031175 which is valid from 29.03.2011 to 29.03.2012. While so on 27.07.2011 at 23.00 hours on National Highway no.9 a lorry bearing registration NO.MS 15BJ 8832 dashed against the lorry of the complainant as a result if it the insured lorry damaged and also the driver and the assistant of the driver received grievous injuries. The PS Omerga registered a case in Crime No.150 of 2011 dated 28.07.2011 u/s 279, 337 of IPC. The complainant got the vehicle repaired by incurring an amount of Rs.4,98,563/- and thereafter he made a claim with the opposite party for reimbursement of the amount but the opposite party did not pay the same. Hence, the complain...
Branch Manager Vs. Hemant and Another
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member: 1. This appeal has been preferred by State Bank of Patiala, Palwal “opposite party No.1 (appellant herein) against the order dated September 17th, 2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Palwal, whereby, the complaint filed by Hemant-complainant (respondent No.1 herein) was allowed. The operative part of impugned order is as under:- œAdmittedly, complainant is a ATM holder issued by opposite party No.1 and he had paid for the same as such he is a œConsumer?. Moreover, in spite of making complaint by the complainant in time opposite party No.1 failed to redress the grievance of complainant. Hence, the complaint is allowed. Opposite party no.1 is directed to credit Rs.5,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till the amount is credited in the account of the complainant. However, both the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation towa...
- ‹ Prev
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- Next ›
- Last »