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.
India Infoline Limited Vs. Vaman Nagesh Usapkar and Others
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. This appeal is filed by OP No. 1 in CC No. 126/09, and, is directed against order dated 18/10/12, by which two members of the Lr. District Forum have held the complainants (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) to be consumers and have awarded to them a sum of Rs. 1,72,020/- towards the loss suffered by them with interest at the rate of 18% from 30/12/09 till payment and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- besides costs of Rs. 15,000/-, with the third lr. member dissenting and holding that the complainants are not consumers and as such their case was liable to be dismissed. 2. The short question for our consideration is whether the complainants (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) are consumers within the meaning of Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986? 3. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose off this appeal and for that the parties hereto are being referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the complaint. 4. The complainants case seems to have no beginn...
Mahinder Lal Mehta Vs. M/S. Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Company L ...
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 26.08.2013, 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 owned a Maruti 800 Car, which was insured in the sum of Rs.1,78,484/- with the respondent, for the period from 02.04.2009 to 01.04.2010. Vehicle met with an accident on 02.10.2009 and was completely damaged. Intimation of the accident was given to the respondent. A Surveyor deputed by the respondent, assessed the loss at Rs.1,20,000/-. Claim was, however, repudiated on the ground that the person, who was in drivers seat, at the time, when the accident took place, was drunk. Appellant then filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction to the respondent to pay insurance money as also compensation and litigation cost. 3. Complaint...
The United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Dr. Shailesh K. Jain
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 02/09/2002 passed in Consumer Complaint bearing No. CC No. 35/2002 by the District Consumer Forum Akola by which the complaint has been allowed. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that he is a medical practitioner and he had obtained mediclaim policy from Opposite Party (for short O.P.) on 09/03/2001. The amount of Rs. 30000/- was payable under it towards expenses of hospital and medical tests. On 10/05/2001 the complainant felt severe pain in his chest. He therefore, went to Dr. Rohatiya for treatment. Dr. Rohatiya examined him and prescribed medicine for 10 days and advised him (complainant) for medical tests. The complainant got no relief in that treatment and the his chest pains was unbearable. Therefore, he consulted Dr. Rohatiya, who considering the severness of illness, asked the complainant to take treatment by admitting him in hospital. He was therefore admitt...
Gilla Laxmi Vs. Choudarapu Rajamani and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant and he filed this appeal questioning the order dated 17-4-2012 made in C.C.No.200/2006 on the file of District Forum, Karimnagar whereby the District Forum dismissed the complaint. It may not be necessary for us to go into the various facts narrated by both the parties. Having considered the submissions made by both the counsel, this Commission is of the view that this matter can be settled amicably between the parties and accordingly advised the parties. Now both the parties have come forward stating that they are getting the matter settled and the respondents/opposite parties offered to pay an amount of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty five thousand only) towards full and final settlement and agreed to pay the said amount within a period of three months. If the said amount is not paid within three months, the appellant/complainant is at liberty to get the matter executed before the District Forum, in...
B. Yadagiri and Another Vs. G. Appa Rao and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-07-2014
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) This revision petition is directed against the orders in I.A.No.34/2014 in E.A.No.27/2012 in C.C.No.376/2011 whereby the District Forum-III, Hyderabad by its order dated 06-2-2014 dismissed the petition to discharge the petitioners as sureties. The respondent No.1 herein approached the District Forum and filed a complaint which was numbered as C.C.No.376/2011 and the said complaint was allowed. As against the said order passed by the District Forum, the opposite party No.1 filed an appeal, F.A.No.320/2013 before this Commission and this Commission on 02-4-2013 granted stay till 06-6-2013. The opposite party No.2 approached this Commission and filed F.A.No.639/2012 and the said appeal was dismissed for default by this Commission by order dated 13-9-2013 against which the petitioners/opposite parties herein approached Honble High Court of A.P. and filed W.P.No.22859/2013 and also W.P.M.P.No.28034/2013 and the High Court while admitting the sa...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Setimagrani and Another
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-05-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 29.08.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum"), in Complaint Case No.218/2009 "Smt. Smt. Seti Magrani Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager and another". By the impugned order, the District Forum, allowed the complaint of the respondent No.1/complainant and directed the appellant/O.P.No.1 to pay sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent No.1/complainant along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint and also awarded Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation and to pay the same within two months from the date of order, otherwise, the aforesaid amount will be payable along with interest @ 9% p.a. 2. The facts of the complaint filed by the respondent No.1/complainant before the District Forum : are that the respondent No.1/complainant Smt. Seti Magrani is wife of Late Jang Bahadur Thapa, who wa...
Assistant Engineer (Rural) Vs. Kaushalya Patel and Others
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-05-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.07.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.54/2011, whereby the complaint, has been allowed by the District Forum and the learned District Forum, has directed the appellant/O.P. (i) to send electricity bill for the month of November, 2010 and January, 2011 on the basis of correct consumption, to which the respondents/complainants are responsible to pay (ii) the connection which was disconnected was to be reinstated/connected immediately after making payment by the respondents/complainants (iii) to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation to the respondents/complainants. 2. The facts of the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants before the District Forum, are : that the respondents/complainants obtained one domestic electric connection in their house from the a...
Satheesan, Proprietor, Darsana Traders Vs. M. Gopinathan and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-05-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the 1st opposite party in CC.132/12 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha challenging the order of the Forum dated, July 31, 2012 directing the 1st opposite party to replace defective fridge by a new one and to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- and a cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainant purchased a Godrej Refrigerator from the first opposite party for Rs.14,800/-. Ext.A1 is the cash receipt dated, October 30, 2006. Ext.A2 is the warranty card. Refrigerator has a 10 year Rust Protection Plan. During 2008 the lower side of the refrigerator became affected with rust. Though the said fact was communicated to the first opposite party he did not do anything. From 2011 October onwards refrigerator became defective. M/s JS Services, the service provider of the first opposite party have collected Rs.950/- towards the cost of repair. On October 29, 2011 the service...
Manoj Jacob Vs. Manager, Gulf Gate Hair Fixing Centre, Kasaragod
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC.277/10 on the file of CDRF, Kasaragod under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated, November 20, 2012 dismissing the complaint with a cost of Rs.2000/-. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in his complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainant purchased a Wig for Rs.10,000/- from the opposite party. The said wig is defective as it is causing itching while wearing on the head. The hair in the wig is thick and it is not properly fixing on the head. The spray used in the said wig causes head ache and the clips intended for fixing the wig on the head became corroded. Therefore complainant filed the complaint for getting the price of the wig and also for compensation. 3. The opposite party is M/s Gulf Gate Hair Fixing Centre, Kasaragod represented by its Manager. He in his version before the Forum contended thus:- Complainant is a tool in the hands of one ...
The Maharashtra State Electricity Board Through Its Executive Engineer ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Both these appeals bearing Nos.A/1636/01 and A/1637/01 are being disposed of by this common order as common question of law and facts is involved in them. They are directed against the respective orders passed in two consumer complaints bearing CC Nos.257/00 and 258/00 on 16/10/2001 and 9/10/2001 by the same District Consumer Forum, Bhandara by which both the complaints have been partly allowed. 2. The common case of the respective complainant, as set out in both the said complaints, in brief is that they are running rice mill at Gondia and they have obtained electric connection from the Opposite Party (for short OP) No.1 and 2 for running their rice mill. The officers of the OP Nos.1 and 2 served bills for Rs.69084/- and Rs.327156/- respectively on 15/9/2000 and 29/6/2000 to the complainant Sitaram Agrawal in complaint bearing No.CC No.257/00 and similarly, they served bills for Rs.53088/- and Rs.165556/- respectively on 15/9/00 and 26/9/2000...
- ‹ Prev
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- Next ›
- Last »