Scdrc Court May 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.
Vijay Bendre Vs. I.C.i.C.i. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Oth ...
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: May-12-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.10.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.563/2011. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the appellant (complainant). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are : the appellant (complainant) is owner of a goods carrying vehicle Pick Up Van bearing registration No.C.G.04/J.B. 6841 and its chassis no. is 91K60998 and engine no. is GA91K27480. The said vehicle was purchased with the financial help of respondent No.3 (O.P.No.3). The vehicle was insured with respondent No.1 and 2 (O.P.Nos.1 and 2) (Insurance Company). The policy number is 3003/57951968/00/00 and the policy was effective for the period from 27.10.2009 to 26.10.2010. On 23.07.2010, when driver of the appellant (complainant) Pradeep Naktore after delivery of goods returning back to Raipur and when he reached ...
Sujit Shivshankar Singh Vs. M/S. Sonalika International Cars and Motor ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-2014
Narendra Kawde, Member: [1] Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District has decided the consumer complaint bearing no.189/2010 (Mr.Sujit shivshankar Singh vs. M/s.Sonalika International Cars and Motors Ltd. and ors.) by an order dated 27/09/2013 thereby dismissing the complaint filed by the present appellant/original complainant [hereinafter to be referred to as complainant against the original opponents/present respondents [hereinafter to be referred to as opponents]. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has challenged the impugned order of the District Forum by filing this appeal. Appellant has stated that the order passed by the learned District Forum is bad in law and against the provisions of natural justice. Further, it is averred that learned District Forum failed to appreciate that the problem with exhaust pipe assembly, head light lamp, power window, switch gear, diesel guard in the car are not manufacturing defects, though the complainant plead...
icl Institute of Management and Technology Vs. Ranjit Singh and Anothe ...
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: May-12-2014
Nawab Singh, President (Oral): 1. The Director, ICL Institute of Managerment and Technology (hereinafter referred as appellant) is in appeal against the order dated December 17th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Ambala. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- œ.the complaint is accepted and Op No.1 is directed to comply with the following directions:- (i) To refund Rs.32,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 31.08.2012 i.e. the cut off date the withdrawal of admission, after deducting processing fee of Rs.1000/- as per Section 10 of All India Council for Technical Education Act 1987, till its actual realization. (ii) To pay the complainant an amount of Rs.10000/- in lump sum on account of causing mental harassment as well as costs of litigation etc incurred by the complainant. The aforesaid directions should be complied within 30 days of the receipt of copy of the ...
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Vs. Ashok Nara ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: May-12-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by original opposite party (for short O.P.) Nos.1 and 2 against the order dtd.21.06.2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Amravti passed in Consumer Complaint bearing No.CC/05/184 by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the original complaint in brief, is that he is serving in Telecom Department and residing in residential quarter of that department. The O.P.Nos. 1 and 2 had provided electric connection to his said quarter. However, the O.Ps. issued exorbitant bills for the period from 31.03.2005 to 31.05.2005 for Rs.3,700/-, 31.05.2005 to 31.07.2005 for Rs.9,380/- and for the period from 31.07.2005 to 31.08.2005 for Rs.11,320/-. The residential quarter is comprising of only two rooms and ony complainant, his wife and one son are residing in that quarter. Complainant therefore, made complaints from time to time orally and in writing to the O.Ps. to correct those bills. They...
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Divisional Manager Vs. Panjabr ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: May-12-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by the original Opposite Party (for short OP) against the order dated 10/5/2010 passed in consumer complaint bearing CC No. 229/2009 by the District Forum, Yavatmal by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainant, as set out in the complaint, in brief is that he is an agriculturist and he owns agriculture land admeasuring 6 hactares and 59 Rs. and another admeasuring 2 hactare and 64 Rs at village Hivara. He personally cultivates the same. He had sown and cultivated cotton and Tur crop in the said lands during the year 2008-09. His both the said lands are duly irrigated. He harvested both the said crops. He got 22000 kgs of yield of raw cotton and 16000 kgs of Tur. He stored the same in his godown in the said land. He insured the said agricultural product by taking insurance policy from the OP for the period from 14/1/2009 to 17/7/2009 i.e. for a period of 7 months by paying requisite premium to th...
icl Institute of Management and Technology Vs. Ranjit Singh and Anothe ...
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: May-12-2014
Nawab Singh, President (Oral): 1. The Director, ICL Institute of Managerment and Technology (hereinafter referred as appellant) is in appeal against the order dated December 17th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Ambala. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- œ.the complaint is accepted and Op No.1 is directed to comply with the following directions:- (i) To refund Rs.32,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 31.08.2012 i.e. the cut off date the withdrawal of admission, after deducting processing fee of Rs.1000/- as per Section 10 of All India Council for Technical Education Act 1987, till its actual realization. (ii) To pay the complainant an amount of Rs.10000/- in lump sum on account of causing mental harassment as well as costs of litigation etc incurred by the complainant. The aforesaid directions should be complied within 30 days of the receipt of copy of the ...
Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (Formerly Known as âandeuro;andoelig;max ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-12-2014
A. Radha, Member This appeal is preferred by opposite party against the order in C.C.No.146/12 on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The Forum below directed to pay the remaining2/3 of thematurity amount against the complainants policy with interest @ 12% p.a along with cost of Rs.5,000/-. Further direction is to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party. 2. The complainants case is that the complainant joined an insurance scheme of the 1st opposite party through 2nd opposite party who is the authorized agent of the 1st opposite party on payment of Rs.30,000/- on 14/03/2007. It is informed that the complainant had to pay Rs.30,000/- per year for 5 years and at the end of the 5th year the complainant will be entitled for a maturity value of Rs.1,69,119/- and also eligible for insurance coverage for Rs.2,00,000/- for the rest of the complainants life. On 21/03/2012 the complainant approached for reimbursement for the matured value. The 1st opposite party...
M/S. R.K. Enterprises Vs. Rambir and Others
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: May-12-2014
Nawab Singh, President (Oral): 1. This appeal has been filed by M/s R.K. Enterprises, Sonepat against the order dated January 23rd, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Sonepat. 2. Rambir-complainant (respondent No.1) purchased pesticide insecticides, that is, Shriram Badshah, Shriram Shera, Shriram Teezole, Devicyclin and Shriram Karzeb from M/s R.K. Enterprises-opposite party No.1 (appellant) on October 5th, 2010 for Rs.2340/- vide receipt Annexure-A. He sprayed the same in five acres of his paddy crop within the revenue state of Village Chitana Tehsil and District Sonepat, but due to defect in the insecticide, the crop was damaged. The complainant complained to the agriculture department upon which the Deputy Director Agriculture, Sonepat constituted a team of four agriculture officials, that is, Agriculture Development Officer, Chitana, Block Agriculture Officer, Sonepat, Subject Matter Specialist, Sonepat and APPO, Sonepat, direct...
Market Committee and Another Vs. Krishan Kadian
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: May-12-2014
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member: 1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated June 12th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Jhajjar. 2. Krishan Kadian-complainant (respondent) purchased a Booth/Shop No.17 situated in New Vegetable Market, Jhajjar in an open auction conducted by the appellants-opposite parties on December 18th, 2007 for a price of Rs.28,15,000/-. The respondent-complainant deposited Rs.07,03,750/- at the time of bid and the remaining amount of Rs.21,11,250/- was to be paid by him either in cash within 30 days or with interest at the rate of 15% per annum in six half yearly instalments or as may be specified by the appellant-Board. 3. The respondent-complainant gave an application for waiving off the interest on the instalments amount and the same was recommended by the appellant-opposite party No.1 but of no avail. 4. The respondent-complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, w...
icici Prudential Life Insurance Company Vs. Roshni Devi and Another
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: May-09-2014
Nawab Singh, President (Oral): 1. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) has come up in appeal against the order dated October 24th, 2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Jhajjar, whereby, death benefits of Lal Chand (since deceased) under the policy alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of death of life assured, that is, March 26th, 2009, till its realization, Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses was awarded to Roshni Devi-complainant (respondent No.1 herein). 2. Lal Chand (since deceased) husband of respondent No.1 obtained three insurance policies bearing numbers 11272099 dated March 13th, 2009, 11376953 and 10838390 dated February 23rd, 2009. He died on March 26th, 2009. The claim lodged by the complainant with the appellant, was repudiated on the ground that the life assured concealed material facts in his proposal form that he was suffering from Chronic Myeloid Leu...
- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »