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.
Christopher Lobo Vs. Dr. Domnic Dâandeuro;andtrade; Silva
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
R.C. Chavan, President: [1] This appeal is directed against an order dated 23/12/1996 passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dismissing the Consumer Complaint No.1436 of 1993 upon giving a liberty to the Appellant/original Complainant to approach the Civil Court as the complaint involved complex questions. [2] Facts, which are material for deciding this appeal, are as under:- Mr. Christopher Lobo “ the Appellant/original Complainant (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant for the sake of brevity) suffered a motor-cycle accident on 24/11/1991 and had initially taken some treatment with another doctor. Thereafter, he was treated by Respondent/original Opponent “ Dr. Dominic F. D Silva (hereinafter referred to as the Opponent for the sake of brevity). Opponent found that the Complainant suffered compound fracture of right tibia and two more fractures above the first fracture. The fracture was stabilized by using external fixator on 26/11/...
Punjab State Electricity Board Through Its Sub-divisional Officer Vs. ...
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party No.2 against the order dated 11.5.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant firm was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to overhaul the account for a period of six months prior to the date of checking and issue fresh electricity bills in accordance with Regulation 21.4 (g) and to refund Rs.80,000/- deposited by the complainant in terms of the stay order dated 27.2.2008. They were further directed to pay compensation of Rs.6,000/-, including cost of litigation, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, was dealing in the business of providing telephone services in Punjab under the brand name CONNECT, for which it was us...
Sakharam Dagadu Salunkhe and Another M/S. Audumbar Construction Co. Th ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member: This appeal is directed against the order dated 07/06/2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban in consumer complaint no.CC/08/751 directing the opponent nos.1, 2 and 3 to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- from 06/03/2005 along with interest @ 9% p.a. till realization within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of order. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:- The complainants had booked a flat no.202 in D wing, Building no.2, 2nd floor, Shrikrishna Complex, Western Express Highway, Borivali (E) for consideration of Rs.13,02,000/- and misc. expenses Rs.43,340/-. As per the agreement, possession of the said flat was to be handed over on or before 30/11/2006. The complainants paid an amount of Rs.75,000/- on 06/03/2005. Thereafter, complainants approached to ICICI Bank for Housing loan and the bank had sanctioned loan of Rs.13,00,000/- to the complainants. It is the contention of the complainants...
Shanker Singh Rana, Rudraprayag Vs. Executive Engineer, Rudraprayag
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President, J. 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed by the complainant against the order dated 23.12.2011 passed by the District Forum, Rudraprayag in consumer complaint No. 04 of 2011, whereby the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint filed by the complainant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that on 07.07.2007, the complainant had taken the water connection from the opposite party for his residential house situated at Dhuyeli. It is alleged that for few days, there was regular water supply, but thereafter the water supply got interrupted. The complainant approached the opposite party several times, but to no avail. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Rudraprayag. 3. The opposite party filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that in the vicin...
Rekha Thakur Vs. the New India Assurance Company Limited
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 26.10.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solan, whereby her complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which she filed against the respondent, has been dismissed with the finding that the person, who was driving the insured vehicle, at the time of accident, namely Kapil Thakur, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and that the licence, which he possessed, on verification, has been found to be fake. 2. Admitted facts are that the appellant owned a vehicle, which was insured with the respondent for the period from 14.08.2008 to 13.08.2009. Vehicle met with an accident on 22.03.2009 and was extensively damaged. Accident was reported to the respondent promptly. A Surveyor was deputed, who assessed the loss at Rs. 1,30,979/-, on net of salvage basis. Salvage was evaluated at Rs. 80,000/-. 3. Claim was, however, repudiated on the ground...
Shamsher Singh Vs. Indian Potash Limited Company (i.P.L. Company) Thro ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. The complainant Shamsher Singh, has filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking compensation of Rs.70,00,000/- for decrease in production on account of sale of adulterated and sub standard quality of white potash, Rs.12,00,550/- for loss suffered in Drip System, Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony along with interest @ 9% p.a. i.e. Rs.11,07,074/- totaling Rs.97,07,624/-. 2. The complaint of the complainant in brief is that : the complainant is an educated farmer. Agriculture is only source of his livelihood. The complainant is carrying agriculture activities with the help of his brother Jitendra Singh and other family members. The complainant has obtained 45 acres agricultural land on rent from Chawla Krishi Farm, Mandir Hasaud (Riko Road) and is carrying agriculture activities. O.P.No.1 is a company registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956 and it is manufacturer of white potash fertilizer, O.P.No.2 is...
Punjab State Electricity Board Through Its Sub-divisional Officer Vs. ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party No.2 against the order dated 11.5.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant firm was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to overhaul the account for a period of six months prior to the date of checking and issue fresh electricity bills in accordance with Regulation 21.4 (g) and to refund Rs.80,000/- deposited by the complainant in terms of the stay order dated 27.2.2008. They were further directed to pay compensation of Rs.6,000/-, including cost of litigation, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, was dealing in the business of providing telephone services in Punjab under the brand name CONNECT, for which it was us...
Pseb Through Its Sr.Xen, Gurdaspur and Another Vs. Rur Singh, Gurdaspu ...
Court: Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 28.5.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant against them was allowed and they were restrained from recovering the amount, in question, from the complainant and were further directed to pay Rs.500/- as litigation expenses. 2. The facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant had taken an electric connection No.SP22/0616 in his shop from the opposite parties and he had been regularly paying the bills for the electric energy consumed by him. The opposite parties issued memo No.1877 to him on 8.11.2007 raising a demand of Rs.12,332/- alleging that he had consumed excess units than billed. His meter, which was working properly, was changed by them in his absence. Earlier bills were issued on 15.4.2007 and 17.3.2007 on average consump...
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited Ge Plaza Vs. Jonnalagadda ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) The opposite party is the appellant and filed this appeal against the order in C.C.No.23/2012 dated 16-4-2013 on the file of District Forum, Adilabad whereby the complaint filed by the respondent herein was allowed. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainants husband, one Mr.Jonnalagadda Bhasker Rao, during his life time obtained a non participating unit link insurance policy bearing No.0174912630 for the period from 11-6-2010 to 11-6-2035 by paying a premium of Rs.12,500/- on 11-6-2010. As per the said policy, an amount of Rs.2 lakhs is covered in the event of death of the insured. Unfortunately the said Bhasker Rao died on 14-3-2011 i.e. during the subsistence of the policy and the complainant made a claim. After enquiry, the opposite party/insurance company repudiated the claim stating that the husband of the complainant has not stated his correct age while taking the policy. Alleging that the repudiation of the policy amo...
Superintendent, the Leprosy Mission Trust India Vs. the Wbsedcl and Ot ...
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
Record is put up for passing order on the question of maintainability of the complaint case as raised by the OP vide their application dated 06th March 2014 which was taken up for hearing on 25th March 2014. Ld. Advocate appearing for the OP submitted that the matter as reflected in the complaint case relates to a billing dispute which should have been referred to the Grievance Redressal Officer as provided under the WBERC (Electricity Supply Code ) Regulations. It was asserted that such dispute has to be decided by the Grievance Redressal Officer and thereafter an appeal can be filed before the Ld. Ombudsman in case of dissatisfaction over the order of the Grievance Redressal Officer. Honble Supreme Court held in the matter of CESC Ltd “vs- M.N. Banka and Ors as reported in 1997 (1) CHN(SC) that the billing dispute should be referred to the Electrical Inspector for adjudication and such dispute is not a matter of Consumer Forum or any other court. Moreover, the Electricity Act a...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »