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.
Basheer Kutty Vs. the Secretary, District Co-operative Bank and Anothe ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
K. Chandradas Nadar : Judicial Member Appellant was the complainant in CC.No.289/2009 in the CDRF, Kollam. He had availed a loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from the opposite party bank. The loan was secured on his property having an extent of 4.15 acres and a building there on. The loan was repayable with interest at the rate of 14% per annum. It is alleged in the complaint itself that since the complainant could not make prompt repayments there were accumulated arrears to the bank. Hence the opposite parties filed arbitration proceedings before the Arbitrator under the Co-operative Societies Act as ARC No.127/2007 for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,16,983/- including interest of Rs.2,19,983/- and an exparte order was passed allowing recovery of Rs.9,16,983/- with the agreed interest for the principal amount. The complainant took up the matter in revision before the Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The Co-operative Tribunal modified the order and allowed the bank to realize a sum of Rs.7,16...
The Postmaster, Irinjalakuda Head Office Vs. C.V. John
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
V.V. Jose : Member This appeal is preferred by the opposite party in CC.No.490/08 dated 03.01.2013 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The case of the complainant is as follows. Complainant purchased a Kissan Vikas Pathra from the respondent on 27.04.2002 with a promise of doubling the amount after 5 years. The respondents denied payment in double after the promised 5 years and told that the period of maturity was changed to 8 years for doubling the amount. The reduction of interest and extension of maturity period was not intimated to the complainant and hence this complaint. 2. The version filed by the respondents admitted the purchase of Kissan Vikas Pathra on 27.04.02 and issued the Certificate No.10906. The amount will be doubled only on 27.12.09 as the revised maturity fixed by the Government of India with effect from 01.03.2002. This was noted in the reverse page of the Kissan Vikas Pathra by a rubber stamp. As per Section 11 of Savings Certificate Act 1959 no suit or legal procee...
S. Ramu Vs. M/S.Hdfc Bank Limited, Shastri Nagar Branch, Rep. by Its B ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
(The complainant filed this complaint before this State Commission against the opposite parties praying for the direction to cease and desist from indulging in unfair trade practice and to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- towards compensation for his ordeal and many kinds of suffering caused by their deficiencies and unfair trade practices and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of privacy and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards wastage of time, nuisance, discomfort and distractions from important activities and to pay Rs.4,00,000/- towards sleep deprivation and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards adverse physical health impact and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards harassment, mental agony and annoyance and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards being victimized by aggressive sales pressures, pestering, menace, insults and violation of basic right not to be disturbed and to pay costs. This complaint coming before us for final hearing on 5.3.2014 and hearing the arguments on either side and perused the r...
O.A. Varadadesigan Vs. M/S. Vayjayanthi and Another
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
(The Appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum rejected the complaint as not maintainable. Against the said order, the appellant / complainant filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CCSR.No.267/2013, dated 22.07.2013. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 10.03.2014, upon hearing the arguments on the side of the appellant, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The complainant is the appellant. 2. The appellant / complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum which was entertained in SR.No.267/2013, after hearing the maintainability of the complaint the District Forum rejected the complaint under Sec.12(3) of the Consumer Protection Act. 3. Aggrieved by the same the complainant filed this appeal contend...
Hyundai Motors India Ltd. and Another Vs. S. Girish and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President Both these appeals arise out of the order of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzhain C.C.123/2011 dated August 27, 2012. Appeal 966/12 is by first opposite party and appeal 44/13 is by the 2nd opposite party. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this: Complainant purchased a Hyundai Santro GL car bearing regn.No.KL 29C/3207 from second opposite party for Rs.3,70,000/- on 06/11/2010. The second opposite party did not provide the car with ATS power windows. Therefore on 21/12/2010 3rd opposite party who is an employee of 2nd opposite party took the vehicle for first service and for providing the car with power windows. When the car reached at Kayamkulam it met with an accident and the car was completely damaged. The request of the complainant to replace the damaged car with a new one was rejected by 2nd opposite party. The car was insured with the 4th opposite party, M/S ICICI Lombard General Insurance C...
D. Kumar Vs. Viswanathan and Others
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
(The Appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant / complainant filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.302/2009, dated 12.07.2010. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 07.03.2014, 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.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant for the purpose of business reserved a ticket for a trip to Pondicherry on 4.6.2009 morning through the 1st opposite party and paid Rs.400/- to the 1st opposite party with a request to boarding at the 3rd opposite party travel office being an important boarding point mentioned in the application form. But the request was not...
Kalavathi Natarajan Vs. the Claims Executive, Tata Aig Insurance Compa ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
(The Appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant / complainant filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.157/2004, dated 29.01.2010. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 10.03.2014, 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.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. 2. The complainant had travelled from Boston USA on 13.06.2002 by American EB Flight No.4798 and arrived at JFK Airport and from there she took Air India Flight No.A1-112 to Mumbai and reached Chennai on 02.07.2002. When she arrived at Chennai her baggage had not reached Chennai. She made a complaint to the authorities. Subsequently, the suit ...
Samarth Krupa Co.Op. Hsg. Society Ltd. Vs. Samartha Erectors and Devel ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-2014
P.B. Joshi, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Complainant Society has filed this complaint against the Opponents with the contention that they as promoters and owners of the property bearing Survey No.163/A(pt.) admeasuring about 6330.89 sq.meters at Village Akurli in Registration Sub-District of Mumbai Suburban, Mumbai 400 001 on which the building known as Samartha Krupa was constructed by the Opponent. Opponent sold the flats and entered into agreement with the purchasers on ownership basis and put them in possession of their respective flats on or about February, 2007 after receiving entire consideration. One of the agreements is filed by the Complainant along with the complaint and it is dated 29.12.2006 which was entered into between the Opponent No.1 and Ms.Neema SohansSingh Rajpurohit and Sohansingh K. Rajpurohit. As per the Complainant Opponents failed and neglected to comply the statutory obligations to form the Society even after taking money for the same from all the flat purch...
Avalon Aviation Academy Pvt. Ltd., Aptech Limited and Others Vs. Gurvi ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.1.2014 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it allowed the complaint in the following manner:- œ14. In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them, jointly and severally. The Opposite Parties are directed to:- [a] To refund the 50% amount of course of Rs.1,05,422/-; [b] To pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental agony and harassment; [c] To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation; 15. The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest ...
Sahib Singh and Another Vs. Zion Promoters and Developers Pvt. Limited ...
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
Nawab Singh, President (Oral): 1. For the limited purpose of adjudicating upon the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission in entertaining the present complaint, it is unnecessary to delve too deeply into the facts. 2. Sahib Singh and Mrs. Manjeet Kaur- -complainants have filed the complaint with the averments that they purchased a Flat No.1201 in the Project of the opposite parties known as Stonecrop, Sector 78, Faridabad by making payment of Rs.19,90,000/- and executed Flat Buyers Agreement dated July 02nd, 2008. The opposite parties issued allotment letter (Exhibited C-4) dated July 08th, 2008. The complainants made the total payment of Rs.19,90,000/- in installments on the demand of the opposite parties from time to time. The opposite parties failed to complete the project within the stipulated period, whereas the project should have been completed by July 09th, 2011. Thus, the complainants alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 3. The complainants fi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »