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.
Gopal Dutt Sharma Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 5th October, 2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby though, his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, has been allowed, yet the amount of insurance money, ordered to be paid, according to him, does not fully indemnify him for the loss sustained by him. 2. Appellant owned a vehicle, known as Mahindra Logan DLE, which was registered in the month of May, 2008. The vehicle was insured with respondent No.1 for the period from 18.06.2010 to 17.06.2011. It met with an accident on 06.03.2011 and was extensively damaged. Initial estimate of repair, which was submitted to respondent No.1 by the appellant, was for a sum of Rs.1,83,819/-. Then a supplementary estimate was submitted, which was for a sum of Rs.78,860/-. Ultimately, the repairer, impleaded as opposite party No.2/respondent No.2, demanded R...
Kosaraju Nageswara Rao Vs. M/S. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by It ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
(Circuit Bench at Vijayawada) Oral Order : (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The Complainant is the appellant. The appeal is filed challenging the order of the District Forum on the aspect of quantum of compensation awarded as inadequate. 2. The appellant insured with the respondent his Lorry bearing Registration No. AP 20X 3447 for a sum of Rs.9 lakhs. The respondent issued insurance policy bearing No. 462-100/31/20.12/634 for the period commencing from 28.04.2011 till 27.04.2012. 3. The vehicle met with an accident on 20.08.2011 at Kolkata and the appellant had given intimation about the accident to the respondent which deputed surveyor Chenchal Biswas to visit the place of accident and conduct spot survey. The surveyor conducted spot survey and undertook photographs of the damaged vehicle on 22.08.2011 and he submitted report on 09.09.2011. The surveyor had not mentioned in his report any amount assessed as damage. 4. The appellant shifted the vehicle from the place where the acc...
Suchita S. Naik Vs. the National Insurance Complainant. Ltd.
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. Consumer complaint filed by the Appellant/Complainant on 5/01/2007 against the Opposite Party, for compensation of Rs.1.74 lacs came to be dismissed by impugned order dated 29/10/13. Hence the present appeal. 2. Some bare facts are required to be stated to dispose off this appeal. 3. The Complainant is the owner of a Tata Tipper truck manufactured in September 2003 and registered under no.GA-02/V-7512. The vehicle was duly insured with the OP. Complainant was using the said truck for carrying iron ore and on 31/03/05 while the said tipper truck was unloading the ore, its lift oil return pipe gave way and the iron loaded body fell on the chassis and sub chassis damaging the same. The OP appointed a duly licensed surveyor Shri R. R. Prabhu who submitted a report dated 18/04/05 and on the basis of the same the OP repudiated the claim made by the Complainant, by its letter dated 9/06/05. 4. The said surveyor Shri R. R. Prabhu in para 2 of his report dated 18/04/0...
Roshanlal Davessar and Another Vs. Senior Post Master General Post Off ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
C.C. Pant, Member. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.11.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, in consumer complaint No. 230 of 2012 thereby dismissing the same. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainants“Sh. Roshanlal Davessar and Smt. Madhubala Davassar have a joint saving bank account with G.P.O., Dehradun bearing A/c No. 796375. Besides this Saving Bank A/c, each one of the complainants had opened two separate accounts on 18.12.2009, bearing a/c no. 531532 and 531533 respectively under Monthly Income Scheme (or M.I.S.) of the Post Office and deposited a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- in each account which yielded an interest of Rs. 3,000/- per month per account, totaling to Rs. 6,000/- per month. The interest so accrued was credited in the joint saving bank account of the complainants. The complainants have alleged that the Post Office did not honour a cheque dated 02.05.2012 issued by them for Rs. 12,000/- and debited an amoun...
Dr. A. Kataria Vs. Sanjay Kumar
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 24.1.2014 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it allowed the complaint in the following manner:- œ12. Resultantly, in view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed. The same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed to refund the balance fee amount of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant. The OP is also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant for causing harassment, apart from paying litigation cost of Rs.5000/-. This order be complied with by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which it shall be liable to pay the awarded amount of Rs.11,000/- + Rs.7000/- i.e. total Rs.18,000/- along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 11.11.2013 till its actual payment, besides paying liti...
Country Club [India Limited] and Another Vs. Sqn. Ldr. Gurdial Singh [ ...
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 31.01.2014 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it allowed the complaint, filed by the complainant and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants) as under:- œ10. In the given situation and taking a lenient view in favour of the Complainant, we allow this complaint and order the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.70,000/- paid by the Complainant for taking the Membership. No costs. 11. This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the Opposite Parties shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. on Rs.70,000/- from the date of deposit i.e. 20.01.2013, till its realization.? 2. The facts, in brief, are that the as a sequel to the representation of the Opposite Parties, held at Chandigarh on 20.1.2013, the complainant became a membe...
Agnivesh Gupta Vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd., Regional Head (Ap and Chennai) and ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) The petitioner who is complainant in C.C.No.590/2010 as party in person filed the present transfer application seeking transfer of the said C.C. from District Forum-III, Hyderabad to any Forum in city or Ranga Reddy District Forum. Heard the petitioner in person and counsel for the respondents. It may not be necessary for us to go into the various aspects raised in the complaint or in the transfer application for the reason that the counsel for the respondents stated that he has no objection if the matter is transferred to any Forum. In those circumstances, the said C.C.No.590/2010 is hereby withdrawn and transferred to District Forum-II, Hyderabad. Accordingly this transfer application is allowed transferring the matter i.e. C.C.No.590/2010 to District Forum-II, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs....
Jaleshwar Singh Vs. M/S. Shelter Maker (i) Private Limited and Others
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: 1. Complainant is a Chartered Accountant by profession filed this consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service against the Opponents “ M/s.Shelter Maker (I) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Builders) for not delivering the possession of the office premises purchased for the purpose of office use, though major amount against consideration has been paid. 2. Complainant booked the office premises in the project viz. K/A Poonam Plaza situated at Land bearing CTS. No. 337, 343, 341/1 to 343/8 at Village Gundavari, Andheri East, Mumbai, Office Block No.410 admeasuring 445 sq.ft. for total consideration of Rs.17,80,000/-. Allotment letter dated 26th May, 2004 has been issued by the Opponent builders confirming the allotment of the office premises and also having received on that day amount of Rs.6,29,675/- from the Complainant. The balance amount of Rs.11,50,325/- was to be paid as per the stage of completion indicated in the allotment letter,...
Sunita Bali Vs. Kwality Colonisers Private Ltd. and Others
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant being M.A. B.Ed, having a vast experience of 20 years, in teaching line, wanted to start her own work, to get some regular income, by keeping herself busy. She planned to start English Speaking Course, Coaching Institute and Career Consultancy Course, to earn her livelihood, by way of self employment. Accordingly, she booked shop number/unit, i.e. SF-33, measuring super area 646.76 square feet, Second Floor, Radisson Hotel-cum-Commercial Tower, Zirakpur, with Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, through Opposite Party No.3, on payment of Rs.10 lacs, as booking amount, vide cheque No.000003 dated 04.10.2010. The total price of the said unit was Rs.35,24,842/-. The complainant paid another amount of Rs.14,74,438/- i.e. Rs.3,74,438/-, vide cheque No.000009 dated 04.11.2010, and Rs.11,00,000/-, in cash, on the said date (04.11.2010), to Opposite Party No.1, which was acknowledged vide Annexure C-3. Allotment letter da...
Gopal Dutt Sharma Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 5th October, 2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby though, his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, has been allowed, yet the amount of insurance money, ordered to be paid, according to him, does not fully indemnify him for the loss sustained by him. 2. Appellant owned a vehicle, known as Mahindra Logan DLE, which was registered in the month of May, 2008. The vehicle was insured with respondent No.1 for the period from 18.06.2010 to 17.06.2011. It met with an accident on 06.03.2011 and was extensively damaged. Initial estimate of repair, which was submitted to respondent No.1 by the appellant, was for a sum of Rs.1,83,819/-. Then a supplementary estimate was submitted, which was for a sum of Rs.78,860/-. Ultimately, the repairer, impleaded as opposite party No.2/respondent No.2, demanded R...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »