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. Veera Reddy Vs. the Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
Oral Order: (Gopalakrishna Tamada, President) The unsuccessful complainant approached this Commission and questioned the order dated 21.09.2012 in CC.No.152/2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Kurnool, whereby his claim against the opposite party for a sum of Rs.3,15,000/- with interest at 24% per annum was dismissed. The facts in nutshell are that the complainant/appellant herein is the owner of new TATA INDIGO car bearing No.AP21 M 49959 and the same was insured with the opposite party vide policy bearing No.1808792311001804 for a value of Rs.3,15,000/-. During the subsistence of the said policy the vehicle was stolen by unknown persons at Bangalaore. In those circumstances, the complainant lodged a complaint before the Jaya Nagar P.S. and the same was registered in Crime No.208/2009. Thereafter, the complainant informed the opposite party i.e. Insurance Company about the theft. The police filed a final report before the court stating that the said vehicle was not traced...
Life Insurance Corporation of India and Another Vs. Vidya Devi
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 23.08.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against them, by respondent- Vidya Devi, has been allowed and a direction given to them, to pay the money due against policy No.153003156 dated 14.02.2008, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of the complaint, to the date of actual payment and also to pay Rs. 4,000/-, as compensation and Rs. 2,000/-, as costs. 2. Respondent filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that her husband late Ram Krishan had purchased an insurance policy on his life and paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, as one time premium. Premium was paid on 14.02.2008. Policy was to mature on 14.02.2018. On 20th November, 2011, Ram Krishan died. Claim was lodged with the appellants for payment of money due under the polic...
United India Insurance Company Limited and Another Vs. Balwant Singh
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
Nawab Singh, President (ORAL): 1. This appeal has been filed by United India Insurance Company Limited-opposite party (hereinafter referred as Insurance Company) against the order dated September 20th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Jind. 2. Balwant Singh-complainant (respondent) was owner of vehicle Tata-407 bearing registration No.HR-64-3580. The vehicle was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company for the period October 4th, 2010 to October 2nd, 2011 vide Insurance Policy Exhibit OP-7. It met with an accident on May 30th, 2011. The surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.2,24,609.90. The insurer did not pay the benefits of insurance to the respondent-complainant and repudiated respondents claim by repudiation letter dated December 16th, 2011. 3. The respondent filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 4. The appellant-opposite party contested complaint by...
Pradyut Ghosh, Howrah Vs. the Station Manager, West Bengal State Elect ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
Debasis Bhattacharya, Member. This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.10.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Howrah in Case No. 22/2012, by which the complaint was rejected for taking to falsehood by the Complainant. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the Complainant thereof has preferred this appeal contending mainly that the Ld. district Forum did not consider the petition filed on behalf of Joydeb Ghosh and others who filed No Objection for electric connection to the Complainant. However, the OP No.4 also made a false statement in the W.V. that Tushar and Srikanta are alive, though they are dead. None of the OPs did plead in their respective W.V.s regarding such an anomaly on the part of the Complainant, otherwise the Complainant could have taken recourse of amendment of the complaint. The entire mistake has been done by the Lawyer and his Clerk concerned, and the Complainant had no intention to adopt falsehood. Instead, the Ld. District Forum ought to ...
M/S. Lithos Estate Dev.Pvt.Ltd. and Another Vs. Champaklal N. Jogi as ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
R.C. Chavan, President: Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 29/06/2010, original opponent no.1 has filed Appeal no.A/10/1061, whereas original complainant has filed Appeal no.A/10/1013. Vide impugned order original opponent no.1 is directed to deliver possession of flat no.1802, Kent Garden, Borivali (W), Mumbai 400 092 to the complainant within a month from the date of the order or in the alternative to pay Rs.1000/- per day as fine in addition to compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment and costs of Rs.5,000/-. Original complainant has preferred an appeal directing opponent no.1 to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount of deposit from 31/12/1998 till upto one month after the date of order. Facts which are material for deciding these appeals are as under:- On 20/06/1998, the complainant booked a flat with the appellant and an agreement was executed between the parties on that date but it was not registered. The complainant claimed to have paid a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- towards...
The Senior Divisional Manager, M/S. Life Insurance Corporation of Indi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
Oral Order: (Gopalakrishna Tamada, President) This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.06.2012 in CC.No.40/2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum-I, Chittoor, whereby the District Forum while allowing the claim of the respondent herein i.e. the complainant awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the appellant- Insurance Company. The notice sent to the respondent herein i.e. the complainant was returned unserved. However, as the notice was sent to the last known address of the respondent, it was held sufficient. The brief facts as per the complaint filed u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act are as under: Complainants husband Thirupal Naidu had taken a policy known as New Jana Raksha Plan with profits and the sum assured is Rs.50,000/- and in addition to that a sum of Rs.50,000/- has to be paid in case of accidental death. After the death of the deceased, a claim was preferred but only death benefit to the extent of sum assured was paid but accidental benefit was n...
Kishor Laxminarayan Mantri and Others Vs. Prabhavati Vijaykumar Kulkar ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. Both these appeals have been filed by the original opponents 1 and 3 to 5 against the common judgment and order dated 14/07/2008 passed by the Dist. Consumer Forum Nanded, in CC.No.82/2008 whereby complaint is partly allowed holding the appellants in both these appeals as liable for deficiency in service. The respondent No. 1 in both the appeals is the original complainant whereas other respondents in both the appeals are the original opponents. For better understanding the appellants in appeal No. 948/2008 who are the buildeRs.and developeRs.are herein after termed as œ the opponent builders? and the appellant in appeal No. 1403/2008 which is HDFC Ltd, herein after termed as œopponent HDFC Ltd? The respondent Sow. Sunanda w/o. Maruti Dande is hereinafter termed as œthe opponent No.2? and the respondent No. 4 in appeal No. 948/2008 which is ICICI bank is termed as the œOpponent ICICI bank? and the respondent No. 5 in appeal No. 948 and re...
Vardhireddy Prabhavathi Vs. the Post Master General, Divisional Post O ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
Oral Order: (Gopalakrishna Tamada, President) The appellants are the complainants and this appeal is preferred against the order dated 18th January, 2013 made in CC.No.116/2012 whereby the District Consumer Forum, Kadapa refused the claim of the complainants and dismissed the complaint. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum. So many facts have been narrated by the complainants, but in our considered view all the said facts may not be necessary and in nutshell the facts are that the complainants are the residents of Chirajupalli village, Yerraguntla Mandal of YSR District. The husband of the first complainant during his life time opened S.B. account bearing No.2401652 in 3rd opposite party Branch Post Office on 30.03.2010. At the time of opening of the said account, he paid an amount of Rs.15/- as insurance premium covering the risk of accidental death for an amount of Rs1,00,000/-. On 19.9.2010 the said Pulla Redd...
Mungara Ramalinga Reddy Vs. the Executive Officer, Board of Trustee, T ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
Oral Order: (Gopalakrishna Tamada, President) The appellant is the complainant and this appeal is preferred against the order dated 5th March, 2012 made in CC.No.5/2012 whereby the District Consumer Forum-II at Tirupati refused the claim of the complainant and dismissed the complaint. The brief facts as per the complaint filed u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act are as under: On 12.11.2008, when the 1st opposite party called for the tenders of moulded plastic chairs, the complainant was declared as a successful bidder and his tender was accepted on 11.12.2008 and by notice dated 12.12.2008 he was asked to appear on or before 25.12.2008 for entering into an agreement and by letter dated 19.12.2008 he was directed to deposit Rs.34,600/- and Rs.7,500/- towards ASD and EMD respectively and also Rs.197/- towards corpus fund. Accordingly, the complainant paid all those amounts and entered into an agreement on 09.02.2009. However, on 08.03.2009 he was asked to supply a sample plastic chair ...
Himalaya Hydro Private Limited Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Apr-03-2014
C.C. Pant, Member: 1. M/s Himalaya Hydro Private Limited, Hydro Power Project Motighat, District Pithoragarh has filed this consumer complaint through its General Manager“Sh. A.K. Pathak (hereinafter referred as œcomplainant? or œcompany?) under Section 12 read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the United India Insurance Company Ltd., Bank Road, Pithoragarh (hereinafter referred as œopposite party? or œinsurance company?), alleging deficiency made by the opposite party by not indemnifying the actual loss suffered by the company. 2. The facts of the case, as stated in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Registration Act and takes up works related to Hydro Power Projects. The company has taken one such work at Motighat, Village Sheraghat, P.O. Sheraghat, Tehsil Munsyari, District Pithoragarh. Since the site of the project was not free from accidents, the company took a...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »