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.
R.K. Mishra Vs. Gurmeet Singh
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2012, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondent, has been dismissed. 2. Appellant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the respondent, alleging that the latter is engaged in the business of carpentry and he had engaged him (respondent) for doing wood work in his flat, at Shimla. According to him, he and his wife paid a sum of Rs.1.75 lacs, to the respondent for doing the work. He executed the work, but the same was of much lesser value, than the amount of money paid to him. It was also alleged that the respondent submitted factitious bills and also filed a civil suit in the court of learned Civil Judge, Shimla, seeking payment of more amount of money, even though, out of the amount of Rs.1.75 lacs already paid,...
M/S Baba Loknath Ice Factory of Vill âandeuro;andldquo; Piragachha, K ...
Court: SCDRC
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. ...
Dr. (Mrs) Mamata Vs. Ratnamala and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against order dtd.13.12.2001 passed by District Forum, Yavatmal in consumer complaint bearing No. CC/99/487 by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that she is a married woman and she had conceived and therefore, she had consulted opposite party (for short œthe O.P.?) No.2 - Dr. Sandhya Bonde for examination and treatment on 28.01.1999. She referred her (complainant) to O.P.No.1 “ Dr. Mamata Mukhi for sonography. The O.P.No.1 did the sonography on 28.01.1999 and issued report on charging Rs.250/-. The said report alongwith photocopy of sonography was handed over to O.P.No.2. The O.P.No.2 after going through that report said that the complainant is bearing twins and accordingly, she gave treatment to her. However, on 27.02.1999 the complainant suffered labour pains and she was, therefore, taken to nearby O.P.No.3 - Christian Hospital of Um...
Sau Sarika Ritesh Chaudhari Vs. Vaishali Anil Tondare
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
S.B. Sawarkar, Member: 1. The present appeal No.A/11/128 takes an exception to the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amravati dtd.18.02.2011 passed in complaint case No. CC/10/117 vide above order the District Forum granted the complaint and provided a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the original complainant with a cost of Rs.1,000/- to be paid in the period of 30 days, if not paid, then to pay an interest @ 9% p.a. 2. The facts in the complaint are that the original complainant Sou Vaishali Anil Tondre filed a complaint against the original opposite party Sarika Ritesh Choudhari alias Sarika Indrakumar Wankhede before the Forum on 25.05.2010. The complainant complained that when she was pregnant of three months on 23.03.2009 she slipped. As she had a pain in stomach she allegedly went to the O.P. for treatment. The O.P. gave her certain homeopathic medicines and told her that as she slipped, the foetus in her womb is disturbed and she will have to get the abortio...
M/S. Surya Rice and General Mills Tehsil Vs. Deputy Chief Engineer Ope ...
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 company against the order dated 25.3.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which their complaint against the respondents/opposite parties was dismissed. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant company was having an electric connection, bearing account No.LS-26 and it had been paying all the electricity consumption charges. Opposite party No.1 issued a notice, vide memo dated 3.1.2007 in which a demand of Rs.49,14,816/- was raised. It filed reply to the said notice and the demand was reduced by the opposite parties to Rs.12,95,820/-, vide letter dated 18.1.2007. Thereafter, it filed an appeal No.MA 28 of 2007 before the learned Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, who accepted the appeal and set aside the letter dated 18.1.2007, vide order dated 21.10.2008 and directed opposite party No.1 for taking fre...
M. Raja Manohar Vs. Superintendent Central Copying Section Principal D ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
T. Ashok Kumar, Member 1. This complaint is filed U/s.17(a)(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the Superintendent Central Copying Section, District and Sessions Court, Sanga Reddy, Medak District and two others seeking direction to pay exemplary damages/compensation of Rs.37,88,300/- together with costs of Rs.10,000/-. 2. The facts leading to the present case in brief are that the Station House Officer P.S. Indra Karan, Ordnance Factory Medak filed final report in FIR 06 of 2010 at SHO/PS Indra Karan, Ordnance Factory Medak Estate, Yedumailaram, Medak District before Addl Judicial First Class Magistrate Sanga Reddy (AJFCM). On 5.5.2010 assailing the final report the complainant filed protest petition under the provisions of Cr.P.C. before AJFCM concerned and the opposite party no.2 postponed it till the middle of July 2010. The complainant due to sickness did not attend the court on the date of adjournment and thereafter on 4.8.2010 the opposite ...
Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department Vs. Shrikrushna Deorao Wakod ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 08/07/2002 passed in Consumer Complaint bearing CC No. 297/2001 by the District Consumer Forum, Akola by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that he is an agriculturist, holding agricultural land in gut No. 19 of village Bahirkhed. The said land falls under the water supply scheme of the opposite party (for short O.P.). He has got right to irrigate his land by taking water from Bahirkhed water distribution system. Therefore he made application to the O.P. As per the direction of the O.P., he had furnished to the O.P. map showing availability of the water canal to his land. He then sowed wheat and Tur seeds in his two acres of land. However, the O.P. did not supply water to his land. The complainants two neighbours namely Pravin Gawande and Suresh Gawande closed the water canal passing through his land. The O.P. did not repair...
Jagdish Chand Vs. Manager Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. a ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.04.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 57 of 2010, whereby the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that one Sh. Jagdish Chand had purchased a Health Plan Insurance Policy No. HW00040304000101 from Royal Sundram Alliance Company“opposite party No. 1 on 01.08.2007 for the period from 01.08.2007 to 31.07.2008 and paid a premium of Rs.2,529/-. The policy was duly renewed for next year for the period from 01.08.2008 to 31.07.2009. For the deposit of premium, a grace period of 15 was days allowed by the insurance company and, therefore, for the renewal of the said policy for the period from 01.08.2009 to 31.07.2010, the premium was sent by the complainant to opposite party No. 1 on 11.08.2009 through speed post from G.P.O., Dehradun “ opposite party No. 2. It is alleged that the Postal Department could not d...
Branch Manager Vs. Hemant and Another
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
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...
The Oriental Insurance Co.,ltd. Khairatabad, Hyderabad Rep. by Its Man ...
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...
- ‹ Prev
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- Next ›
- Last »