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.
Lissy Wilson, Memuriyil Veedu, Omallor Village, Kozhencherry Taluk Vs. ...
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 97/2011 in the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta seeking modification of the order of the Forum dated August 21, 2012. 2. The case of the complainant as testified by her as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this: The complainant entrusted the construction work of 2 rooms in the upstair of her house to the opposite party by agreement Ext.A2 dated. 10/05/2010 for Rs.1100/- per square feet. The opposite party has agreed to use only quality materials for construction. But the opposite party used poor quality materials for the construction as a result of which cracks developed in plastering, door frames and door panels. Therefore complainant claimed a compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- with interest and cost. 3. The case of the opposite party before the Forum was of total denial. He contented that he has used good quality materials and the defects alleged in the c...
Kottakkal Kunhalimarakkar, Higher Secondary School, Kottakkal and Anot ...
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 opposite parties in CC 415/2011 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode of u/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order of the Forum dated July 31, 2013. 2. The case of the respondent/complainant as testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this: The complainant approached the 1st opposite party for getting admission to +1 regular course for his son. On the instruction of the 1st opposite party, 2nd opposite party collected Rs.5,000/- from the complainant towards admission charge. After completing the admission when enquired it was found out that it is not a regular course, but a parallel course. Therefore complainant claimed refund of Rs.5,000/- paid by him at the time of admission, but 2nd opposite party refused and stated that complainant is entitled to the refund of caution deposit of Rs.1,000/-. Therefore the complainant filed the complaint c...
K. Radhakrishnan Vs. Manager, Rajani Gas Agencies and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
(The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain reliefs. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to modify and enhance the compensation the order of the District Forum in CC. No.83/2008 dt.30.09.2010. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 17.3.2014. 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 in the open court:) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties prayed for directions to supply of refill gas cylinder in time and to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and Rs.3,000/- as costs. 3. The District Forum after considering both sides materials, dismissed the complaint by finding that the comp...
Sanjay Nayar, C.E.O., Citi Bank of India and Others Vs. A. Annadurai a ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
(The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in CC. No.349/2007 dt.05.05.2009. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 17.3.2014. 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 in the open court:) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are the appellants. 2. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties prayed for return of blank cheques and NOC and to refund collection of excess amount and also the compensation of 19,00,000/- with the cost for deficiency and mental agony. 3. The complainant availed the personal loan from the opposite parties 1 to 3 on 20.07.2003 for Rs.1,00,000/- ...
Mandeep Kaur and Others Vs. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Educati ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
Padma Pandey, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.01.2014, 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 complainants (now appellants). 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainants alleged medical negligence for the treatment given by the Opposite Parties to the deceased husband of complainant No.1, who was also the father of complainant Nos.2 and 3. It was stated that the deceased was running a Medical Store by the name of Singh Medicos and while he was in the shop, some unknown miscreants, attacked him on 01.11.2010. As he had been shot in the abdomen, he was immediately taken to Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh for treatment. On 2.11.2010, the attending doctors recommended that he be taken to PGIMER. It was further stated that the patient was taken to PGIMER where he was attended up...
Mariamma Koshy, Retd.Principal Vs. Nagarajan and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
K. Chandradas Nadar : Judicial Member The appellant was the second opposite party in CC.No.237/2007 in the CDRF, Kollam. The second complainant is the son of the first complainant. The second complainant had applied for admission in VHSE course in Govt Model Higher Secondary School, Thevally, Kollam. The first opposite party was the Director Department of VHSE and the second opposite party was the Principal of the Govt Model Higher Secondary School, Thevally, Kollam. It is alleged in the complaint that the second complainant got memo for admission from T.K.D.M.Govt VHSS Higher Secondary School, Kadappakkada, Kollam. He attended the interview there on 29.06.2007 and got admission for M.S.Course. He had remitted Rs.950/- as admission fee and submitted original certificates there. Then the second complainant got memo for admission from the school of the second opposite party with direction to appear for interview for M.L.T and MOBE courses. The complainants attended the interview with pho...
Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. and Another Vs. T.F. Mariyan
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
A. Radha, Member Aggrieved by the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam in C.C.No.463/11 the opposite parties preferred this appeal. 2. The case of the complainant is that he was a subscriber of opposite party cable service and the subscription was paid on annual basis. The service has to be provided till 30th September 2011. While so, the cable service was stopped on 10th July 2011 and was not rectified even on several requests made by the complainant. The channels were provided by Analog Mode. The complaint is filed to revive the cable T.V connection and for other reliefs. 3. The opposite parties admitted the stoppage of transmission to the complainants residence. The reason for stoppage was due to the conversion of analog mode of transmission to digitalized mode. The digitalization of cable transmission was in lieu of the direction by the TRAI. It is stated that the complainant had not furnished the address proof and ID proof as pre-requisites for the installation of set top box, free...
M/S. Devendra Exports Private Ltd., Rep. by Its Executive Director Vs. ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
(The complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission against the opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite part to refund a sum of Rs.95,00,000/-, to pay a Rs.3,00,000/- for damages, and also to direct the opposite party to pay a Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of the complaint. This complaint coming before us for hearing finally on 19.3.2014. Upon hearing the arguments of the complainant counsel, perusing the documents, this commission made the following order in the open court:) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The complaint filed by the complainant is placed before us to decide the maintainability of the complaint. 2. The complainant being the Export Company represented by the Executive Director filed the complaint seeking the relief for refund of Rs.95,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- as damages and to pay Rs.50,000/- as costs from the opposite party which is also a company alleging deficiency in service failed to render the service according to the MOU for develo...
The Senior Manager, Rep. by S.Umapathy, Indian Overseas Bank and Anoth ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay the loss of money Rs.1,05,000/- and also to direct the opposite parties Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages and mental agony. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in C.C. No.788/2004 dt.23.04.2010. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 17.03.2014. 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 in the open court:) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The opposite parties are the appellants. 2. The complainant having current account transactions with the opposite parties bank came to know that a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- was paid and the basis of two stolen cheques for Rs.45,000/- and Rs.60,000/- re...
Branch Manager and Others Vs. Nand Lal Arora
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 18.01.2014, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby they have been ordered to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- as compensation, and another sum of Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost, to respondent-Nand Lal Arora. 2. Respondent filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that on 13.02.2001, he invested a sum of Rs.10,000/- in a fixed deposit, in the name of Bhavya, a minor. The fixed deposit was to mature on 13.02.2010. On the date of maturity of the fixed deposit, respondent, allegedly went to the branch of the appellants at Mandi and presented the FDR, with the request that the same be renewed for a period of one year. The document was allegedly retained and he was told that bank record did not bear any entry, with regard to fixed deposit and search for the entry in their records would be made and then the FDR renewed. 3. When respondent ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »