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.
B. Venkamma and Others Vs. .The Manager, Royal Sundaram Allianz Insura ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
Oral Order: (Gopalakrishna Tamada, President) The unsuccessful complainants are the appellants herein and they approached this Commission and filed this appeal against the order dated 24th May, 2013 made in CC.No.1/2013 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Kadapa, whereby the complaint of the complainants i.e. the appellants herein was dismissed. The brief facts as per the complaint filed u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act are as under: B.Thirupalaiah, who was the husband of the 1st complainant and the father of the 2nd and 3rd complainants and the son of the 4th complainants, was the owner of a tractor and trailer bearing No.AP04 THTR 9438 and was hale and healthy prior to the accident and was maintaining the said tractor and trailer for agricultural purpose and also for various types of works in order to eke out his livelihood smoothly. The said Thirupalaiah, during his life time, had insured his vehicle i.e. tractor and trailer with the said Royal Sundaram Insurance Compan...
Nripendra Nath Mondal Vs. the Commercial Executive Engineer, Cesc Calc ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
This order relates to the prayer of the Appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal on 03.12.2013 against the Order dated 03.09.2013 of the Ld. Forum below in the Execution Case No. 410 of 2013. There was a delay of 58 days beyond the statutory period of 30 days in filing the Appeal. The Appellant, who, by profession, is an Advocate, appeared in person and submitted during hearing on 14.03.14 that an Execution application being filed before the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit II on 19.08.2013 ,an order was passed on 03.09.2013 disposing of the Execution matter . Ld. Forum below in their order overlooked the fact that major part of their order dated 08.08.2013 in the original complaint case, CDRF No. 278 of 2003, was not complied with by the OPs. Hence an appeal has been filed against the order dt 03.09.2013 of the Ld. Forum below . The delay in filing the appeal was mainly because of the fact that though the order was passed on 03.09.2013, copy of the o...
A. Seenaiaah Vs. the Head Post Master, Head Post Office, Nellore
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
Oral Order: (Gopalakrishna Tamada, President) A.Seenaiah, S/o.Venkaiah, a resident of Nellore claiming to be the nominee of late A.Yanadamma approached the District Forum, Nellore and filed CC.No.15/2011 stating that the said Yanadamma during her life time executed a Will on 16.07.2007 bequeathing her property, particularly the F.D.Rs in his favour. After her death i.e. on 08.09.2007 as per the nomination made by her he is entitled to the FDRs and accordingly issued a legal notice to the opposite party i.e. respondent herein on 30.07.2010 for payment of the said FDRs. As the respondent did not respond, complaining deficiency of service, the said Seenaiah filed the said complaint. The same was opposed by the opposite party/respondent herein stating that one Chintha Subrahmanyam is the nominee of the said Yanadamma and the Seenaiah has nothing to do with the said Yanadamma and in those circumstances it could not pay the claim amount. The complainant/appellant herein has not chosen to get...
Bank of Baroda Bhajanpura Branch Vs. Laxmi Prashad Gupta
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) Appellant/ OP Bank of Baroda has filed this appeal under section 15 r.w section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (Hereinafter called the Act). Brief facts of the matter are that Respondent/ Complainant Laxmi Prasad Gupta was having a SB Account No. 6232 with OP/ Appellant Bank having sufficient balance on 20.11.2006, Complainant/ Respondent visited the OP Bank and obtained statement of account. Complainant was shocked to learn that a sum of Rs 55,000/- and amount of Rs. 30,000/- were illegally withdrawn, from the account of the complainant either with the help of the Bank employees or withdrawn by someone from the account of the Complainant, due to negligence or deficiency on the part of the OP Bank. Complainant/ Respondent brought this fact to the knowledge of the Bank officials and told them in clear terms that the aforesaid amount has never been withdrawn by the Complainant/ Respondent. The Complainant lodged his complaint; kept on pursuing...
Punita Singh and Another Vs. Emaar Mgf Land Ltd. and Another
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. The facts, in brief, are that the complainants were looking for a residential accommodation/ apartment. Accordingly, the complainants approached the Opposite Parties, and booked an apartment, having three bedrooms, super area 1750 square yards, in their project, under the name and style of œThe Views? at Mohali Hills, Mohali, Punjab, vide application dated 15.11.2007, on payment of Rs.7 lacs (i.e. Rs. 4 lacs vide cheque no. 572592 and Rs.3 lacs vide cheque no. 850445), as booking amount. Receipts Annexures C-1 and C-2, both dated 16.11.2007, in this regard, were issued by the Opposite Parties. It was stated that the application of the complainants was accepted, and, as such, they were allotted apartment No.K1-F04-404, Tower No.K, Type-3 Bed Room + 3 Toilets, measuring super area 1750 square feet, @Rs.2,950/- square feet of super area, alongwith car parking space @Rs.1,50,000/- per parking bay, plus (+) Preferential Location Charges (PLC) @ Rs.10...
Thorahathula Visalakshmi Vs. Vasudha Traders, Rep. by Its Managing Par ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
Oral Order: (Gopalakrishna Tamada, President) This appeal is preferred against the order in IA.No.174/2010 in an un-numbered C.C.Sr.No.1414/2010 dated 22.01.2013, whereby the District Forum at Nellore refused to condone the delay of 5016 days in filing the said complaint. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum. The brief facts are that the complainant is a resident of Nellore and being attracted with the advertisement issued by the opposite parties became a member of the real estate monthly scheme organized by the opposite parties and paid 63 instalments at the rate of Rs.250/- each. After payment of the 63rd instalment the opposite parties wound up their business and their whereabouts were not known. Though the complainant expressed her willingness to pay the last instalment i.e. 64th instalment as the whereabouts of the opposite parties are not known she could not pay the same. After thorough search and enquiry sh...
National Insurance Company Limited and Another Vs. Ajay Mehra
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Apr-04-2014
Nawab Singh, President (Oral): 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated October 22nd 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Jhajjar, whereby the complaint filed by respondent-complainant seeking direction to the appellants-opposite parties to pay the benefits of insurance with respect to his motorcycle which was stolen during the subsistence of the Insurance Policy, was accepted. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- œ..it is directed that the respondents shall make the payment of IDV i.e. Insureds declared value of Rs.38,639/- (as is clear vide Ex.P-10, insurance policy) on account of theft of vehicle along with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of theft of vehicle i.e. 23.12.2010 till actual realization of final payment to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.2,000/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation onl...
Jadavpore Co-operative Land, Kolkata Vs. Rama Rani Ghosh, Jharkhand
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
Debasis Bhattacharya, Member This revision is directed against the order dated 07.02.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum, South 24 Parganas in Case No. 219/2012, by which the prayer for exemption of cost of this Revisionist was rejected, fixing next date for payment of cost, i.d., further proceeding of the case ex parte, and the evidence on affidavit from the side of the Complainant as filed to be put up on the date fixed. The main contention of the Revisionist is that he promptly appeared in the case and prayed for an opportunity for contesting the case by challenging the allegations of the Complainant and 26.12.2012 was fixed for filing W.V. On 26.12.2012, there was a resolution by the Consumer Court Bar Association urging not to pass adverse orders in cases for the period from 26.12.2012 to 30.12.2012, but on which date, the Ld. District Forum fixed the case for ex parte hearing on 14.01.2013, and the OP filed W.V. along with show cause, which was allowed to be accepted subject to...
Ramesh Yadav Vs. the New India Assurance Company Limited
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
Nawab Singh, President (ORAL): 1. This complainants appeal is directed against the order dated December 17th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Gurgaon, whereby complaint filed by him was dismissed. 2. Ramesh Yadav-complainant (appellant herein) got his truck bearing registration No.HR-55-C-8198, insured with The New India Assurance Company Limited-opposite party (respondent) from July 1st, 2006 to June 30th, 2007. The Insured Declared Value (for short IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.12,80,000/-. During the intervening night of July 30th/31st, 2006 the vehicle was stolen from area of NH-8 Naharpur (Gurgaon). He immediately informed the Police and the Police advised the appellant to search the vehicle at his own level but he did not find any clue. In this regard F.I.R. No.595 (C-3) was lodged in the Police Station, Sadar Gurgaon on August 3rd, 2006. Respondent gave intimation to the Insurance Company. Untraced Report Annexure C-4 was given ...
Krishan Kumar Saraf and Another Vs. Jaichand Lal
Court: Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
The matter appears to have chequered history. A complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant before the District Forum on 29.09.2003 with the allegation that inspite of deposit of the entire amount on different dates the concerned plots so booked by the complainant has not been sold to him. The District Forum vide ex-parte order dated 07.01.2004 directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.93,100/- with interest to the complainant. However, the State Commission while partly allowing the appeal filed by the appellant remanded the matter back to the District Forum vide order dated 29.03.2005 to decide the dispute after hearing both the parties. The District Forum again vide order dated 12.01.2006 while allowing the complaint directed the appellant to refund the amount of Rs. 1,23,100/- with interest from the date the amount deposited by the complainant on three different dates. Hence the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the plots in dispute had alre...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »