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.
Ramesh Vs. M/S. Scoda Auto India Pvt.Ltd. and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This is a complaint u/s. 17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as the œAct?). 2. Brief facts giving rise to this complaint are that, complainant Shri. Ramesh Ramprasad Mantri who is a retired Judicial Officer and now legal practioner was in a need of luxury car. Therefore in the month of Nov.- December, 2009 he was in search of luxury car which suits to his needs and status. During that process he found that respondent No.1 who is a manufacturer and trader of Scoda Superb Elegance Top-class car has been advertising which would give uninterrupted service for years together. Opponents-2 and 3 are the authorized dealers of opponent No.1 M/s. Scoda Auto India Pvt. Limited. Therefore, complainant Shri. Mantri contacted opponent No.3 who impressed upon him that the Scoda Superb Elegance car is a top class luxury vehicle and would be giving smooth service without any complaint for years together. Relying on the representat...
P. Nageswaramma Vs. the Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
Oral Order: (Gopalakrishna Tamada, President) Complainant is the appellant and she had approached this Commission questioning the order dated 05.06.2013 made by the District Consumer Forum, Kurnool in C.C.No.52/2012 whereby the assured amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 24% per annum, compensation and costs were rejected by the said Forum. The brief facts as per the complainant are that she is the sister of one P.Obulesu and during his life time the said Obulesu insured his life with the opposite parties Insurance Company for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, vide policy No.655754342 and also paid a premium of Rs.24,260/-. Subsequent to the taking of the policy, the said Obulesu died on 08.06.2010 due to heart attack. As the complainant is the sister and nominee as per the said policy, she approached the opposite parties and made the said claim, but however the same was rejected stating that though the insured i.e. Obulesu was aged about 50 years, the said fact was not disclosed and it...
The New India Assurance Company Limited, Through Its Senior Divisional ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 24.05.2007 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 37 of 2003, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant “ insurance company to pay the market value of $4,303.64/- on the date of the order to the respondent “ complainant together with interest @9% p.a. from 08.03.2003 till payment and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses. Vide his dissenting order dated 28.12.2006, the learned President of the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant “ insurance company to pay $4,303.64/-, i.e., Rs.2,10,000/- to the respondent “ complainant together with interest @12% p.a. from 08.03.2003 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 Sh. Sumi...
Ajit JaIn Vs. Development Credit Bank Limited, Through Its Managing Di ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.02.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant applied for Home Equity Loan, with Opposite Party No.2, which was approved by it, vide letter dated 25.02.2010, copy whereof is Annexure C-1. Loan amount, to the tune of Rs.1,70,00,000/- was sanctioned, in favour of the complainant. Opposite Party No.2, assured the complainant, that it would charge him interest @11.50% per annum, on the loan amount. It was stated that the complainant always paid the installments of loan amount, to Opposite Party No.2, as per the schedule. It was further stated that, on 09.07.2012, Opposite Party No.2, intimated the complainant, vide letter Annexure C-2, that outstanding amount of loan of Rs.1,42,2...
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Senior Divisional Mana ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. By this common order, we proceed to dispose of two appeals, titles and other particulars whereof are given above. F.A. No.383 of 2013, has been filed by Oriental Insurance Company Limited, hereinafter called opposite party, while F.A. No.25 of 2014, has been filed by M/s. Lucky Shoe Store, hereinafter called complainant. Both the appeals are directed against the same order, i.e. order dated 23.10.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur. 2. Complainant, M/s. Lucky Shoe Store, owned as Pick-up Bolero Camper 2WD BS2 of 2008 model. It was insured with the opposite party in the sum of Rs.3,50,526/- for the period from 17.01.2010 to 16.01.2011. Vehicle met with an accident on 1st March, 2010. Report of accident was lodged with the police, vide First Information Report, copy Annexure R-3. Intimation of accident was given to the opposite party also. A surveyor was deputed by the opposite party, who assessed the los...
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. (Previouly Mseb) Vs ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
S.B. Savarkar, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 3.3.2007 passed in CC No. 164/2004 by the District Forum, Amravati by which the complaint has been partly allowed. Vide above order, the Forum directed the Opposite Party to issue a bill of electricity of the preceding six months at the rate of 130 units per month without levying any interest, interest upon the interest or delay charged upon it which the complainant should pay. Forum further directed to re appropriate the amount of Rs.4723/- dated 19/1/1994 and Rs.1888/- dated 10/7/1991 total Rs.6118/- deposited by the complainant, if not appropriated so, and, then accept the bill as directed in clause two. It further directed the complainant to pay the amended bill in 30 days, if not paid, the OP was permitted to recover the bill with interest and other charges. The facts leading to above judgment are that the complainant in the above Consumer complaint claimed himself to be consumer of the O...
Xerox India Ltd., (Formerly Known as Xerox Modicorp Limited) Vs. T.R. ...
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 2nd opposite party in CC.306/06 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated, March 18, 2013 directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,08,750/- being the cost of the defective Xerox machine purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties and to pay a compensation of Rs.40,000/- and a cost of Rs.700/-. 2. The case of the complainant as stated in his complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainant is an Executive Engineer retired from Kerala Government service. After retirement he is practicing as Chartered Engineer and Registered Valuer with CBDT, Government of India for the past 16 years. He purchased the Xerox 1025 ST copier in 1994. The first opposite party approached the complainant with a trading offer to exchange the Xerox machine of the complainant with a Xerox Work Centre 415 for Rs.1,08,750/-. After deducting the value of the Xero...
P. Ramesh Babu Vs. Divisional Engineer, Operation/Town-ii and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
Oral Order: (Gopalakrishna Tamada, President) The complainant is the appellant and this appeal is directed against the order made in CC.No.82/2011 dated 17TH January, 2013 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Nellore whereby the District Forum while allowing the complaint filed by the complainant i.e. the appellant herein however has not chosen to award any compensation or costs. The brief facts as per the complaint filed u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act are as under: The complainant constructed Shiridi Sai Residency apartments and got electricity service connection to the fourth floor from the opposite parties. He deposited an amount of Rs.4,850/- on 16.08.2011 with the authorities for obtaining the electricity service connection. The electricity service connection was not provided even after one month. He got issued a notice on 21.09.2011 calling upon the opposite parties to provide electricity service connection. The opposite parties remained silent even after receipt of...
Unit Trust of India (Now Uti Technology Services Limited) Through Its ...
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
Nawab Singh, President (ORAL): 1. Unit Trust of India (for short UTI) has filed the present appeal against the order dated October 22nd, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Jhajjar. 2. UTI launched Rajlakshmi Unit Scheme, 1992 (hereinafter referred as Scheme, 1992) exclusively for the benefits of women. Under the said Scheme, Virk Bhan Ahlawat, purchased 200 units in the name his daughter Jyoti-complainant (respondent) on September 13th, 1993. The date of maturity was September 13th, 2011 and the maturity amount assured was Rs.30,000/-. 3. The UTI paid an amount of Rs.5774/- to the respondent on October 7, 2011 instead of Rs.30,000/-. She filed the complaint before the District Forum, Jhajjar. The District Forum accepted the complaint. The operative part of the impugned order is reproduced as under:- œ.it is directed that the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.24,226/- (Rs.30,000/- the maturity amount (minus) Rs.5774/- already paid ...
NitIn Maroti Kale Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This complaint is filed by Shri.Nitin Maruti Kale against the opponent No.1 and 2 alleging deficiency in service against the opponents. 2. The brief facts of this complaint are that, complainant runs a business of ginning and pressing at village Nathapur, Tq. and Dist. Beed. That, he had obtained cash credit loan of Rs.4 crores against the receipt of 2300 cotton bales which were deposited with opponent No.2 i.e. National Bulk Handling Corporation Ltd., Beed (hereinafter referred as NBHC). The terms and conditions of the loan were that the margin of the said loan was agreed up to 25%, rate of interest was fixed at @ 12% p.a. and period of repayment was 12 months as applied to cash credit loan. That, the complainant after availing loan had deposited amount of interest and loan with the opponent No.1 i.e. State Bank of Hyderabad to the tune of Rs.77 lakhs and thus loan account of complainant was regular. However, opponent bank started demanding entire amount of loa...
- ‹ Prev
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- Next ›
- Last »