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.
Usha Shukla Vs. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of Indi ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-26-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 05.06.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Baikunthpur Koria (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.11/2013. By the impugned order, the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant, has been partly allowed and the respondents/OPs have been directed to jointly or severally pay a sum of Rs.9,762/-, which is proposal deposit amount, along with interest @ 9% from 27.08.2011 and respondents/OPs have been further directed to deposit the aforesaid amount with the District Forum within 45 days from the date of order for making payment to the appellant/complainant. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant/complainant filed this appeal before us. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the respondent/complainant before the District Forum are : that the husband of the appellant/complainant namely Late Ramendra Kumar Shukla, purchased an insurance policy on 27.0...
B. Venkataiah Vs. M/S. City Line Estates Pvt. Ltd. and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) The complainant by name Mr.B.Venkataiah, filed the present complaint seeking refund of a sum of Rs.21,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of final payment i.e. 15-4-2007 till the date of realization i.e. an amount of Rs.25,18,125/- and in total, he claimed an amount of Rs.46,43,125/- with further interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till the date of realization and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards inconvenience, hardship and mental agony together with costs of Rs.25,000/-. The case of the complainant as per the complaint filed U/s.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is that the opposite parties are developers and developed a layout in the name and style of œShirdi Nivas? by its company œM/s City Line Estates Pvt. Ltd., at Nagaram Village, Maheshwaram Mandal Ranga Reddy District. In that regard they purchased an extent of Ac.5-00 of land converted the same into ho...
Sunita Bansal Vs. Dlf India Limited Now Dlf Universal Limited and Othe ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.01.2014, 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 Opposite Party No.1 floated a scheme for allotment of residential plots in the area of Mullanpur known as Hyde Park, New Chandigarh, Punjab and engaged Opposite Party.2 as Sales Organizer. It was stated that Opposite Party No.2 floated different companies by the names of M/s MG Goodlands Pvt. Ltd., M/s MGD Real Care Pvt. Ltd. and NMG Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd. It was further stated that Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Opposite Party No.2, alongwith his wife Mrs. Namrata Gupta and his daughters namely Ms. Kalyani Gupta and Ms. Eeshita Gupta, who were also doing property business with their father, induced the complainant to make initial investment at pre-launch stage in th...
Rattan Lal Sharma Vs. M/S. Suman Motors, Through Its Authorized Signat ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondent, has been dismissed, with the finding that service hired by the appellant, with respect to which, deficiency is alleged, was for commercial purpose and the appellant having not pleaded that he hired the service for earning his livelihood, by employing himself, he is not a consumer, within the meaning of Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. Appellant owned a tipper. It was not in working order, so he hired the service of respondent, who is authorised dealer of Swaraj Mazda vehicles to repair it. A sum of Rs.1,20,000/- was allegedly paid to the respondent as advance money. Some specific date was given by the respondent, as per allegation in the complaint, for delivering the tipper, after r...
iffco âandeuro;andldquo; Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Cha ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 07.02.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No.109/2012. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the respondent/complainant and directed the appellant/O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.1,40,691/- (Rs. One Lakh Forty Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety One only) to the respondent/complainant, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till date of payment. The District Forum has further directed the appellant/O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- as compensation for mental and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the respondent /complainant before the District Forum are : that the respondent/complainant purchased a tractor bearing registration No.C.G.13-D-9576 on 30.04.2011 with the help of financier Mahindra Finance. The said vehicle was insured by the...
S.S. Kantilal Ishwarlal Securities Private Limited Vs. Manju Suresh Mu ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Both these appeals are directed against the separate judgments and orders dated 16.1.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Jalgaon partly allowing complaint case No.262/07 and 261/07. (For the sake of brevity appellant is hereinafter referred as opponent No.3 S.S.Kantilal Ishwarlal Pvt.Ltd. and respondent No.1 in both the appeals as complainants and respondent No.2 and 3 as opponent No.1 and 2). As the appellant as well as respondent No.2 and 3 i.e. original opponent No.1 and 2 are common and facts of both the appeals are common, we have decided to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment. 2. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that:- Shri.Tushar Vijay Shinde is Managing Director of opponent No.1 Soni Investment. Opponent No.2 Shri.Vijay is father of Shri.Tushar Vijay Shinde, opponent No.3/appellant S.S.Kantilal Ishwarlal Securities is a company incorporated under the Company Act and depository participant register...
Dlf India Limited Now Dlf Universal Limited Vs. Nidhi Gupta and Others
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the common order dated 27.01.2014 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant and directed Opposite Party No.1 (now appellant), as under:- œWe accordingly allow this complaint and direct opposite party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. This order be complied with by opposite party No.1, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of receipt till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs. The complaint qua Ops No.2 and 3 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.? However, the complaint against Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 was dismissed by the District Forum with no order as to costs. ...
Divine Automotives P. Ltd. Vs. Ankit Singh and Another
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.05.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 156 of 2009, whereby the District Forum has partly allowed the consumer complaint against the opposite party No. 1 and directed them to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation. The District Forum has also directed the opposite party No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant. The above amount was directed to be paid within a month (30 days) from the date of the order, failing which the complainant was also held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the above amount from the date of filing the consumer complaint till the date of actual payment. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant - Sh. Ankit Singh had purchased a car named Honda City, bearing registration No. UA08-J-9099, on 23.04.2007 from M/s Divine Automobile Pvt. Ltd., Mohabbewala, Saharanpur Road, Dehra...
Dr. D.J. De Souza Vs. Aster Biologicals
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. This is a Complainants appeal and is directed against order dated 18/02/2014 of the Lr. South Goa District Forum, by which the complaint filed by the Complainant on 03/02/2006 has been dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-. 2. We have heard the Complainant in person, at length. 3. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose off this appeal. 4. The Complainant purchased from the OP a semi automated Spectro photometer AE 600 made in Japan by ERMA Inc. for a sum of Rs.1.7 lacs. The said instrument was installed on 24/11/04 and had a warranty of one year, upto 23/11/05. After the instrument was installed, the Complainant signed an endorsement on the warranty card stating that the instrument was installed properly; its performance was within the specifications and that the Complainant was shown how to change the peristaltic pump tube, fuse and lamp. After the said endorsement was signed by the Complainant, the Complainant also scribbled a note below it, stating t...
M/S. Indiabulls Securities Limited and Another Vs. Anand J. Gawde
Court: Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Decided on: Apr-25-2014
N.A. Britto, President: 1. This appeal has been filed by the Opposite Parties in CC No. 93/09, and, is directed against order dated 29/01/13 by which the consumer complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant on 10/08/09 is allowed, and, the OPs have been directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 4,24,800/- with interest at the rate of 12% from 8/3/09, as loss suffered by the complainant, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation, and Rs. 20,000/- as costs. 2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose off this appeal. 3. The complainant is in private service. The OPs are brokers dealing in buying and selling of shares and derivatives. OP No. 2 is the branch office of OP No. 1 at Panaji. The OPs i.e. OP No. 1 is a member of National Stock Exchange and of Bombay Stock Exchange and is a Stock Broker with Securities and Exchange Board of India. 4. The complainant entered into what is known as a Member Constituent Agreement dated 23/3/06 with the OPs, as per the Rules and Bye-laws of the said Exchang...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »