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.
P. Sankarankutty, Porakkattu House, Thalavanikkara Vs. Kerala Circle M ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC.542/09 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur challenging the order of the Forum dated, January 15, 2013 dismissing the complaint. 2. The complainant filed the complaint before the Forum alleging that he has recharged his mobile phone having No.9846653872 on September 06, 2006 for Rs.777/- from the opposite party who did not provide him with the promised talk time. 3. First opposite party is Kerala Circle Manager, Vodafone Essar Cellular Limited, Kochi, 2nd opposite party is its Nodal Officer and 3rd opposite party is Branch Manager at Thrissur. They raised the maintainability of the complaint by filing I.A.921/11. The Forum dismissed the complaint as not maintainable in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Prakash Varma Vs. Idea Cellular Limited and Another 2011 CTJ 494 SC and also in General Manager Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan and Another in Civil Appeal No.7687/2004. The Delhi High Court in Writ Petition N...
M/S. Malpro Silica (P) Ltd, Rep by Its Managing Director Thiru. K. Siv ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
(The Appellants are the complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellants / complainants filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.38/2007, dated 12.10.2010. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 19.03.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side , perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member The unsuccessful complainants are the appellants. 2. The appellants filed this appeal against the opposite parties claiming the amount of Rs.19,99,000/- including Rs.17,56,349/- under the peril policy for the goods destroyed due to flood and water cyclonic effects which was repudiated by the respondents / opposite parties on the ground that the claims were not proved in a proper manner a...
M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by Its Manager Vs. Dr. P. T ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
(The Respondents as complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain reliefs. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party / appellant praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in CC. No.621/2005 dt.15.07.2010. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 14.03.2014. Upon hearing the arguments of the appellant counsel and respondents counsel, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court:) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The complainants availed the mediclaim policy for the period from 16.08.2004 to 08.06.2005 for the value of Rs.50,000/- and during the period of policy in force as the 1st complainant had some ailment for which he had treatment under gone surgery and thereby when he claimed a sum of Rs.50,000...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Its Divisional Manager ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the opposite party (Insurance Company), is directed against the order dated 21.11.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by respondent-Vishal Pathania, against the appellant, has been allowed and a direction given to it, to pay a sum of Rs.3,60,000/-, on account of insurance money, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint, to the date of its payment and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation, and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. 2. Respondent owned a vehicle, which was insured with the appellant in the sum of Rs.3,60,000/-, on the basis of insureds declared value. During the period, when insurance policy was in force, vehicle was stolen by a passenger, who was travelling by that vehicle. Intimation of theft was gi...
P. Gadadharan Vs. Manager, Hdfc Bank Ltd.
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC.500/09 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam challenging the order of the Forum dated, March 30, 2012 directing the opposite party/Bank to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum and as stated in the complaint in brief is this:- Complainant is an Advocate practicing at Kozhikkode Bar. He had submitted an article titled Infraction of Law and Violation of Human Rights to Amnesty International. He got the E-mail from the Amnesty International stating that Nigerian Senate has accepted his article and he is entitled for Rs.10.5 Million US dollars as grant on condition that the complainant deposits Rs.6000/- in their account. Complainant approached the opposite party, HDFC Bank, Calicut and submitted the relevant records and also entrusted to Rs.6000/- with the Manager by way of cheque on October 03, 2008. But the account was activated o...
E.V. Saji Vs. the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
K. Chandradas Nadar : Judicial Member Appellant was the complainant in CC.No.237/2013 in the CDRF, Thrissur. His complaint was rejected by the Consumer Forum at the stage of admission holding that the complaint was barred by limitation in view of Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act. 2. The allegations on which the complaint was founded in brief were the following. The complainant was the owner of Tata Sumo Car bearing Reg.No.KL-8-KA-1809 and the vehicle was insured with the second opposite party. On 25.03.2002 three unidentified persons hired the car saying that they were going to Kottayam Medical College. One Suresh Babu, was the driver of the vehicle and the vehicle was hired from the taxi stand near the KSRTC bus stand, Thrissur. It appears that nothing was heard of the vehicle and the driver subsequently and hence the brother of the driver namely one Mohanan approached the Thrissur East Police Station and lodged complaint. Based on his complaint Crime No.125/2002 was regist...
Maragatham Pressings, Rep by Its Managing Partner, K. Natarajan and Ot ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
(The complainants filed a complaint before this Commission against the opposite parties praying for a direction to the opposite parties to credit all the payments made by the complainant from to in OCC account and recalculate the amount payable under term loan with interest till date and to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs. This complaint coming before us for final hearing on 07.03.2014 and heard the arguments on the side of the complainants this Commission made the following order:) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The complaint placed before us by the registry to determine the maintainability of the complaint. 2. The complainants represented by its Managing Partner seeking reliefs for the directions to the opposite parties to credit all the payments made by the complainant to the OCC account and recalculate the amount payable under the term loan with interest till the date and to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as com...
Sushila Mardia Vs. Dbs Cholamandalam Securities Ltd.
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
(The Appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain relief. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant / complainant filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.302/2009, dated 28.02.2011. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 19.03.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side , perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant had demat account with the opposite party with specific ID Number and had certain transactions in which she found all of a sudden some unauthorized transactions had been taken place without knowledge of the complainant and thereby the opposite party demanded a sum of Rs.1,92,682.58 due to opposite partys person one Mr.Baskaran h...
The New India Assurance Company Limited Having Its Registered Head Off ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President, J. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 17.10.2011 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 174 of 2006, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant “ opposite party to pay sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- to the respondent “ complainant together with interest @9% p.a. from the date of lodging the claim till payment; Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle No. UP07-L-9034, which was being driven by Sh. Shyam Singh, who was having a valid driving licence. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant “ The New India Assurance Company Limited for the period from 18.05.2006 to 17.05.2007. On 19.07.2006, the complainant took booking of household...
Sat Pal Kansal Vs. Chief Engineer
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.02.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, 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 complaint, being resident of H.No.405, Sector 30-A, 1st Floor, Chandigarh, had been facing a lot of problem of low water pressure for the last many months. It was stated that he was regularly paying the water bills including other taxes, duties and cess. It was further stated that the amount, in thousands, charged illegally from him, was never refunded to him despite numerous requests made to the office of the Chief Engineer (Public Health). It was further stated that the complainant was a consumer as there was involvement of payment against water supply. It was further stated that the complainant visited the office of the Opposite Party for the problem of zero s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »