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.
Satnarayan and Another Vs. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Li ...
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Apr-02-2014
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), Jind, whereby complaint filed by Satnaryan and his wife Dhupo Devi seeking benefits of insurance with respect to the Insurance Policy obtained by their son Ramesh (deceased), was dismissed. 2. Ramesh (deceased) purchased a Kotak Life Insurance Policy (Exhibit OP4), from respondent-opposite party, on June 18th, 2008 for Rs.2,00,000/-. The insured had to pay annual premium of Rs.10,000/-. The insured did not pay premiums which were due on April 18th, 2009 and on April 18th, 2010. So, the policy lapsed due to non-payment of the above said premiums. Thereafter, the insured got the policy revived on January 5th, 2011 by paying the aforesaid premium for which he submitted Form Exhibit OP-8. The insured died on January 7th, 2011. The claim of the appellants with respect to the above said policy was repudiated by t...
Amarjit Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Others
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/complainant against the order dated 10.8.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which his complaint against the respondents/opposite parties was dismissed. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant had an electric connection, bearing account No.K-55 KE 620816 F for domestic purpose, at his residence and he had been regularly paying the electricity bills for the electricity consumed by him. On 25.1.2009, the opposite parties issued a bill of Rs.69,320/- pertaining to the period from 4.11.2008 to 4.1.2009, which included Rs.69,000/- as sundry charges and Rs.320/- for 120 units consumed during the said period. It had no right to recover any amount on account of sundry charges from him. He visited their office a number of times and requested to withdraw the said amount but they lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other, ...
New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Balak Ram
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it, by respondent-Balak Ram, has been allowed and a direction given to it (the appellant), to pay a sum of Rs.11,38,976/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint, to the date of payment of the aforesaid amount of money, and also to pay Rs.6,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation. 2. Admitted facts are that respondent-Balak Ram is a contractor, registered with Public Works Department of Himachal Pradesh. He had been allotted work of construction of road, the cost of which was Rs.1,39,99,617/-. Respondent got the project insured with the appellant, in the sum, equivalent to the cost of work, and paid a premium of Rs.28,018/-. Policy was effective from 11.07.2011 to 10.07.2...
Ajay Srivastav Vs. Maya Academy of Advance Cinematics (Maac)
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.01.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. In brief, the facts of the case, are that in pursuance of an advertisement, as well as prospectus issued by the Opposite Party, the complainant got admitted his son, namely, Sh. Abhiroop Srivastav for B.A. Degree in 3D Animation and Visual Effects, in August, 2012, on the assurance of the Opposite Party that the said Institute was duly recognized with Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi (IGNOU) and competent to conduct the examination in the aforesaid degree. It was stated that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.80,000/- i.e. Rs.70,000/- in cash and Rs.10,000/- by way of Bank Draft bearing No.009438 dated 19.03.2013, Annexure C-1. It was further stated that it was assured by ...
M/S. Paul Constructions, Rep. by Its Managing Partner Vs. Kopuri Bindi ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) These appeals are directed against the orders dated 04-2-2013 in C.C.Nos.138/2012 and 139/2012 on the file of District Forum, Srikakulam whereby the District Forum allowed the complaints filed by the respondents, while allowing the said C.Cs., the District Forum observed as follows: C.C.No.138/2012: In the result, opposite party is directed to deliver the possession of residential flat bearing No.GF-3, site measuring 30 sq. yds. or 25.083 sq.mtrs. out of being undivided and unspecified out of 350 sq. yds., together with a lintel flat bearing Flat No.GF-3 in Ground floor measuring super built up area of 725 sft. (incuding common areas and 2 wheeler parking in the ground floor) of Sri Venkata Narayana Residency, situated at Bonthavari Street, Koteswara Swamy varid Ward, Srikakulam Town, within two months from this day. Opposite party further directed to pay rent of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) from June, 2012 to till...
Ashok Kumar Roy, Jalpaiguri Vs. Branch Manager, Jalpaiguri
Court: West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
Debasis Bhattacharya, Member. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 15.07.2011 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Jalpaiguri in Case No. 19/2011, by which the case has been dismissed on contest against the OP without cost, the Complainant thereof has preferred this appeal. The case of the Complainant is that he invested some money in the Unit Linked Pension Policy Scheme of the OP and paid Rs.2,50,000/- on 03.01.2008, being Policy No. 11502119. As he suffered financial crunch, he requested the OP by a letter dated 18.03.2009 to reduce the half yearly payment and accordingly the OP reduced the same to Rs.65,000/- to be paid half yearly, and accordingly he paid Rs.1,30,000/- being the half yearly investment for the month of July, 2008 and January, 2009. Subsequently, the OP again reduced the half yearly investment to Rs.35,000/-, which was paid for the second half of 2009 on 25.11.2009. Thereafter, he paid the reduced half yearly investment of Rs.10,000/- each for the two ...
M/S. Pushpak Builders and Others Pushpakamal Cooperative Housing Socie ...
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. This appeal can be said to have been filed only by OP Nos. 1 and 2 “ builders - in CC No. 8/01, and, the only exception taken on their behalf, is of award of compensation of Rs.2.5 lacs by order dated 11/01/13 of the Lr. North Goa District Forum at Porvorim, as against Rs.25,000/-, claimed by the complainant. 2. The Appellant/OP No. 1 is a firm of builders and Appellant/OP No. 2 is the Managing partner of the same. Appellant/OP No. 2 is also the son of the owners of the property, OP Nos. 3 and 4. 3. The complainant is a society of flat purchasers of 12 flats constructed by OP Nos. 1 and 2 under an agreement with OP Nos. 3 and 4 dated 5/10/1989 on their plots Nos. 11 and 14 admeasuring 786 sq.mtrs, of S.No. 148/1 of Ponda, in terms of the said agreement dated 9/10/1989. The OP Nos. 3 and 4, the owners, had undertaken to execute a deed of sale of proportionate share in land to the respective flat purchasers or the nominees of OP No. 1, builder. The flat p...
The Director, Bhiwani Institute of Technology and Sciences and Others ...
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
Nawab Singh, President (ORAL): 1. The Director, Bhiwani Institute of Technology and Sciences, Bhiwani, its Chairman and Co-Chairman (hereinafter referred as appellants) are in appeal against the order dated October 4th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Bhiwani, directing the appellants to refund a sum of Rs.53,371/- to Aman Chhabra-complainant (respondent No.1) alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment, Rs.10,000/- was awarded as compensation and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses. 2. Respondent No.1 got admission in the institute of the appellants in M.B.A. for the academic year 2008-2009 through Haryana State Counseling Society, Panchkula. Before taking the admission, he had compartment in B.Com Final year. At the time of admission, he gave an undertaking (Annexure A/2) that in case he did not clear the compartment by October, 2008, he would not ask for refund of the dues and tha...
Vijayakumar Vs. P.C. Dhanaraj and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the 2nd opposite party in CC.94/10 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha challenging the order of the Forum dated, October 30, 2013 directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,04,000/- being the cost of defective bricks supplied by him to the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and a cost of Rs.5000/-. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in his complaint in brief is this:- Complainant availed a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from North Malabar Gramin Bank, Mannar for construction of his house. He purchased 20,000 wire cut bricks of brand named Veni from the 2nd opposite party through his agent first opposite party and paid Rs.1,04,000/-. As the bricks are of poor quality, he informed the fact to the 2nd opposite party but they never settled the dispute. Therefore complainant filed the complaint claiming Rs.2,04,000/- as the cost of bricks, labour charges and other costs. 3. The first opposite party remained absent before the Fo...
Shish Pal Vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. and Another
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-01-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.01.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, 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 complainant claiming himself, as the owner of truck, bearing registration No.HR58A-0125, parked the same, on Ramgarh Mubarakpur Road, on 10.10.2011 at around 10.00 P.M. The said truck was insured with Opposite Party No.1, for the Insured Declared Value, to the tune of Rs.9,25,000/-, on payment of premium of Rs.29,042/-, valid for the period from 05.07.2011 to the midnight of 04.07.2012, vide Proposal-cum-Cover Note Annexure C-4. It was stated that the said truck was got financed from Opposite Party No.2. However, on the morning of 11.10.2011, at about 07.00 A.M., the said truck was found stolen. The complainant immediately informed the Police, as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- Next ›
- Last »