Scdrc Court May 2014 Judgments
M/S. Mantro Thuruthu Service Co-operative-bank, Pattamthuruth P.O, Man ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-31-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC.236/10 on the file of CDRF, Kollam challenging the order of the Forum dated, April, 09, 2012 directing the opposite party to write off the balance amount due under the loan in the name of the complainant treating it as an agricultural loan. 2. The case of the complainants as testified by the first complainant as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainants are father and son. They availed two agricultural loans from the opposite party bank for Rs.50,000/- each and executed bond and deposited Rs.1000/- as share. There is balance of Rs.76743/- to be paid to the bank. As per circular NB(Kerala)No.CPD/1566/PL-14/2008-09, the balance due under the loan has to be written off. Now the opposite party is taking steps to recover the balance amount due. Therefore complainants filed the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to write off the balance amount due from the...
Tag this Judgment!T. Chacko Vs. Vertex Securities Ltd., Thottathil Towers and Others
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-31-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC.374/11 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated, November 15, 2011 dismissing the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- The complainant deposited Rs.75,000/- with the Vazhuthacaud branch of the Trading Member-Vertex Securities Ltd., on October 14, 2000 in Account No.7025 for trading in shares and obtained receipt. Sri.V.Sudhev, the employee of opposite parties 1 and 2 informed the complainant that said amount of Rs.75,000/- has to be remitted being the market value of shares. The first opposite party is M/s Vertex Securities Limited, Kochi, the 2nd opposite party is its Head Office at Mumbai. Opposite parties 1 and 2 fails to deposit the said amount share trading. Though the complainant approached the first opposite party they did not returned the amount....
Tag this Judgment!integrated Finance Company Ltd. and Another Vs. Joseph Thomas and Othe ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-30-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the opposite party in CC.69/12, on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta challenging the order of the Forum dated, November 29, 2012. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this: The case of the complainant is that complainant deposited an amount of Rs.10,55,000/- in the form of bond with the opposite parties Integrated Finance Company on 18.02.2010. Opposite parties have agreed to pay interest at the rate of 11% per annum from the date of taking the bonds. The deposit matured on 26.10.2011. Ext.A1 to A13 are copy of the said bond. Even after the date of maturity the opposite parties did not repay the amount. Therefore complainant has filed this complaint. 3. Opposite party is the M/s Integrated Finance Company Limited, Chennai represented by its Managing Director. He in his version contended thus: The complaint is not maintainable. Complain...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Matta Automobiles Vs. Brij Mohan
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: May-30-2014
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1. Aggrieved by order dt. 19.01.2009 passed in complaint case no. 1065/2007 by DCDRF (East) Convenient Shopping Centre, Saini Enclave, Delhi, opposite party filed this appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1956 (Hereinafter called the Act). 2. The facts of the case are that complainant/respondent is owner of Hyundai Ascent car bearing no. DL2FJ-0070. On 26.06.2007, he was going to Hathras (UP) from Shakarpur (Delhi) along with his friends. On the way he went to a petrol pump namely Matta Automobiles, appellant/OP, and asked the vender/operator to fill speed diesel. However, inadvertently or by mistake the fuel operator filled petrol instead of diesel. When the complainant detected this blunder mistake he brought this fact to the notice of the owner/respondent who assured that petrol filled in the tank will be removed and that no harm to the engine of the car will be caused. He called a mechanic from Tata Telco who removed the petrol fr...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd., R/by Its Divisional Manager, Divisional O ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-29-2014
Santhamma Thomas : Member This appeal is directed against the order dated 30/10/2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint filed on 03/02/2012 of complainant 1, œShri. Tiju Mathew? (now respondent No.1) and directed the opposite parties (now appellants) to pay Rs.2,12,950/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twelve thousand nine hundred and fifty only) along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of judgment till the realization of the whole amounts till its actual payment. 2. Brief facts are that 1st respondent purchased a Toyota Innova Car bearing Reg.No.KL.03M-3006 from the 2nd respondent œShri. Harish.P.G.? (Complainant 2 ...
Tag this Judgment!State Bank of India and Another Vs. Gevarghese Paul
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-29-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties 1 to 3 in CC.No.199/2013 on the file of CDRF, Kozhikode on the Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act. Challenging the order of the Forum dated: 22.01.2014 directing the opposite parties to pay the compensation of Rs.2000/-. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this. 3. Complainant is having a safe deposit locker in State Bank of India, Main Branch, Kozhikode, opposite party no.2, for the past 22 years. On 04.05.2013, the complainant approached the second opposite party to deposit valuables in the locker. The Bank Officer in charge obtained his signature in the register and the complainant was asked to proceed to the strong room where locker is situated. The Manager of the Bank stopped the complainant stating that he did not pay the rent of the locker. The Manager humiliated the complainant in the presence of the staffs and customers. Therefore the complainant...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. M.M. Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2014
S.C. Jain, Member: 1) The facts of the case are that the complainant is a Pvt. Ltd. company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at New Delhi and engaged in the business of manufacturing of readymade garments and woollen knit wear. 2) The complaint through their banker namely Punjab National Bank, took fire policy in the sum of Rs. 2.20 Crores on 7thNovember 2006 for one year. It was further stated that on 26thDecember, 2006 at about 6.00 pm a fire broke out in the premises of the complainant factory which had been insured under the fire policy. Immediately the OP No. 2 had been informed by the complainant about the fire and the bank on its turn informed the OP No. 1 about incident of fire. The Fire Brigade was also called to control and extinguish the fire. It is further case of complainant that the surveyor came to visit the site only on 27thDecember 2006 at about 6.30 pm i.e. after more than 24 hours of breaking out the fire and receiving the ...
Tag this Judgment!Amit Chawla Vs. M/S. Parsvnath Developers Ltd.
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2014
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) Complainant Sh. Amit Chawla has filed this Consumer Complaint u/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) against the OP-Parsvnath Developers Ltd. for payment of Rs. 24,49,276/- comprising Rs. 14,49,276/- as interest calculated @ 24% plus Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. The complainant further claimed a sum of Rs. 5 Lac towards compensation on account of deficiency of service/negligence and cost as well. 2) Relevant facts of the case are that the OP is a developer who constructs flats, villas, houses etc. the OP issued a pre plan of residential project in the year 2006. The complainant booked three bedroom apartment in the above mentioned upcoming project and paid a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- as advance payment. Complainant filed an advance registration form consisting of terms and conditions. One of the terms was that OP will offer a residential apartment to buyers within a period of six months and this advance amount will be a...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Jyoti Khurana Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: May-28-2014
S.C. Jain, Member: 1. The Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 2. The facts which are mentioned in the present complaint are that the complainant in the month of May-June 2006 took a loan (Personal) to the Tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lac Only) from OP. The said Loan was disbursed on 26.06.2006 by the OP, after execution of an agreement bearing No. 5255. As per the said loan agreement the first E.M.I. was due and payable in the month of July 2006 and the last E.M.I. was due and payable in December 2008. The period of loan was 30 months starting from July 2006 and ending in December 2008, as such Advance P.D.C.(Post Dated Cheques) amounting to Rs. 12,272/- each, were duly handed over to the OP by the complainant , IN ADVANCE, before the personal loan was disbursed. 3. The complainants father was not keeping good health as such around February 2007 the complainant decided to fully REPAY the above mentioned Personal Loan. Accordin...
Tag this Judgment!Jayachandran Parambath Vs. M/S. Sathimadom Builders and Developers and ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-27-2014
P.Q Barkath Ali, President This is a complaint filed by the complainantunder section16 of Consumer ProtectionAct for recoveryof Rs.45 Lakhs from the opposite partiesbeing the amountpaidby him to the opposite partiesfor the construction of the Villa and compensation.The material averments in the complaint in brief is this.The complainant entered in toanagreement for sale of plotand construction of a Villa with the opposite parties on June 18 of 2009 for a costof Rs. 25 lakhs.The agreement was to register 3 centsof land in the Guruvayoor Projectto the complainantandto construct and hand over theVilla on or before May 2010.The complainantpaid an advance amount of Rs. 10 lakhs on the date of agreementit.The 3rd opposite party on behalf of otheropposite parties executedthe registered sale deed in respect of 3cents sense ofproperty on June 19,2009 by saledeed No. 1505/2009, S.R.O, Kunnamkulam.The complainant paid Rs. 5 lakhs on September 8, 2009, Rs. 3 lakhs on May 11,2010 Rs. 7 lakhs on Jan...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »