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.
M/S. Tdi Infrastructure Ltd. Through Its Authorized Vs. Maneesh Sharma
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
N.P. Kaushik, Member (Judicial): 1. Present appeal is directed against the orders dated 08.06.2012 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum VI (in short the District Forum). Vide impugned order, the District Forum directed the appellant to refund the amount of Rs.3 lakhs alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of booking till its realization. Litigation costs to the tune of Rs.50,000/- were also awarded. Facts which are not in dispute are that the complainant Shri Maneesh Sharma got booked a residential flat with M/s Taneja Developers and Infrastructures Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as the appellant). On 28.02.2006, a cheque for an amount of Rs.3 lakhs was given by the complainant to the appellant. It is also not in dispute that the booking was earlier done by M/s In Time Promoters which later on got merged with the appellant. Complaint was filed against the present appellant. Allotment was to be made within a period of six months. No development took place at the site. Complaina...
Agriculture Insurance Company of India Limited and Another Vs. Tirath ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. By this common order, we proceed to dispose of two appeals filed by two different opposite parties, against the same order, i.e. order dated 28.10.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu, whereby complaint filed by respondent-Tirath Ram Thakur, against the appellants, has been allowed and a direction given to them to pay a sum of Rs.81,126/- (sic. the figure should be Rs.91,126/-, because, as per operative part of the order, the figure has been worked out on account of difference between Rs.99,050/- and Rs.7,924/-), with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint, to the date of payment of aforesaid amount of money, and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation, and another sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs. 2. Admitted facts are that respondentcomplainant, Tirath Ram Thakur, owned an orchard in Naggar block of Kullu district. He had 200 plants in his orchard during apple season of 20...
M/S. Vishakha Chemicals (Through Partner Sh. Ratan Poddar) and Another ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
S.C. Jain, Member: 1) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dt. 12.03.2010 passed in Complaint Case No. 352/07, by District Forum (North) Tis Hazari, Delhi. 2) Facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant has filed the complaint against the OPs before the District Forum alleging that, appellant/complainant is a small partnership firm and Sh. Ratan Poddar is its one of the partners and he is earning his livelihood by means of self-employment and is carrying on the trading of Ayurvedic Medicines. The Respondent-2/OP-2 invited and made booking in the ever 1989 for booking of shops/spaces in the proposed building known as œDCM Complex? at Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. One Smt. Manmohan Kaur and Col. A.P.Singh made booking of a shop for 400 Sq. Ft. Area on the ground floor in the said complex for a total consideration of Rs. 666400/- and the said booking was made @ Rs. 1666/- per Sq. Ft. And the amount was to be paid in the construction linked instalmen...
D. Arjunudu and Others Vs. Akshya Gold Farms and Villas India Limited ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) The complainants, 100 in number, approached this Commission U/s.17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.18,98,150/- towards refund of the amount as agreed by the opposite parties and to pay Rs.9,49,575/- towards compensation as mentioned in the consolidated table totalling to Rs.28,48,725/- together with interest thereon @ 24% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realization together with costs. The case in brief is that the opposite parties which are in the business of real estate collected amounts from the complainants under a scheme, which is called œAkshya Gold?. In terms of the scheme, the first complainant paid Rs.5000/- on 30-6-2010 to opposite party No.1 on a condition that the first complainant would be paid Rs.7500/- on 29-6-2013 in case he does not require the site of 5 plots/units and the first complainant is also said to have insurance co...
M/S. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. and Others Vs. Ka ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-29-2014
Padma Pandey, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.12.2013, 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:- œ11. 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 Rs.2,41,000/- (Rs.2,16,000/- + Rs.25,000/- as per Annexure C-4 and C-2 respectively) [b] To pay Rs.25,000/- on account of deficiency in service; [C] To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation; 12. The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Part...
Brij Mohan Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
Nawab Singh, President (Oral): 1. This complainants appeal is directed against the order dated March 11th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Bhiwani. 2. Vide order dated May 29th, 2009, passed by District Forum, Bhiwani, an amount of Rs.17,000/- was awarded to the appellant on account of theft of his motorcycle. The appeal filed by complainant for enhancement of compensation was dismissed. In Revision Petition No.434 of 2013 titled Brij Mohan Gupta vs. Divisional Office of United India Insurance Company Limited, Honble National Commission awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.17,000/- awarded by the District Forum. 3. The appellant filed execution application before the District Forum. The United India Insurance Company Limited (for short Insurance Company) submitted a cheque amounting to Rs.24,026/- towards full and final settlement with an application that the amount be not disbursed to the appellant-Decre...
Shankar Lal Arora Vs. Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation L ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
S.C. Jain, Member: 1) The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The facts of the case are that the Complainants father Late Sh. Jindu Ram Arora was running a small scale unit in the name and style of M/s Arora Traders for his and his family livelihood Government of NCR Delhi brought a policy according to which industries based in Delhi were ordered to the relocated from residential areas to newly developed industrial areas and the opposite party proposed to allot plots to industrial units under relocation scheme. 2) The complainants late father vide application No. 29626 applied for plot under relocation scheme with the opposite party and the opposite party allotted a plot bearing No. 52, Pocket D, Sector 4, Bawana Industrial Complex admeasuring 250 Sq.mt@ Rs.4200/- per Sq. Mt. costing Rs.10,50,000/- vide allotment letter dt. 23.10.2000. 3) The complainants late father deposited Rs.2,14,500/- with opposite party agains...
Sub Post Master and Others Vs. Hitesh Garg and Another
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
NawabSingh, President (Oral): 1. Haryana Public Service Commission (for short HPSC), Sector-4, Panchkula, invited applications for the posts of Drug Control Officer (Class-II) in Health Department, Haryana, vide Advertisement No.1 Category (v) on June 8th, 2012 (Annexure-C1).Hitesh Garg-complainant (respondent No.1 herein) applied for the above said post and sent his application through Speed Post contained in an envelope which was handed over to Sub Post Master-opposite party No.1 (appellant) vide receipt Annexure C-5 against payment of Rs.29/- as postal charges. Closing Date for receipt of the applications at HPSC was July 9th, 2012. Instead of delivering the postal article at the destination, it was delivered to Staff Selection Commission, Sector-8, Panchkula on July 2nd, 2013 due to which the application of the complainant could not reach HPSC, Haryana. Resultantly, the complainant was deprived of the interview for the above said post on account of negligence and deficiency in serv...
Manager, Haridwar Gas Agency Singhdwar Vs. Om Prakash
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 22.11.2011 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 133 of 2011, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant “ opposite party to immediately restore the gas supply of the respondent “ complainant and the appellant “ opposite party was also directed to pay compensation / damages of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent “ complainant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant had taken a gas connection from the opposite party “ Haridwar Gas Agency. The gas was regularly supplied to the complainant till February, 2010, but the gas was not supplied to the complainant after February, 2010. The opposite party asked the complainant to complete certain formalities, which the complainant complied with, but inspit...
The Special Officer, S.1143, Kothur Primary Agricultural Co-operative ...
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-2014
(The Respondents are the complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain reliefs. The District Forum Allowed the complainant. Against the said order the appellant / opposite party filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.10/2011, dated 28.12.2011. This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 21.03.2014 and heard 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, Presiding Judicial Member The opposite party is the appellant. 2. The 1st complainant served in the opposite party Kothur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit society from 01.10.1972 to 30.11.2010 and retired from service on 30.11.2010 on superannuation. This complaint has been filed through Tamil nadu Consumer Association, Namakkal which has been arrayed as 2nd complainant. The Special Officer of the said...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »