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.
Esthar George and Others Vs. N.A. Raju, Proprietor, Omega Heritage Apa ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-09-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President These appeals are filed by the complainants in CC.506/09 and CC.27/10 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated, March 25, 2013 dismissing their complaint. 2. Complainants in both the complaints purchased flat from the 1st respondent/1st opposite party but the 1st opposite party has not so far issued occupancy certificate and obtained electric connection in domestic tariff and there are also deviation of the construction from the approved plan. Appellants in Appeal No.440/13 filed in CC.27/10 and the appellants in Appeal.441/13 filed in CC.506/09 before the Forum directing the opposite parties to issue occupancy certificate and electric connection in domestic tariff and also for a direction directing the first opposite party not to deviate from the approved plan. 3. First opposite party is the builder and 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are, Thrissur Corporation. They questioned the mai...
The Chancellor Institute of Chartered Financial Analysis of India and ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: May-09-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 74 days which was caused in preferring appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2013 passed by District Consumer Forum, Jalgaon partly allowing consumer complaint No. 53/2009. 2. We heard counsel for both side and perused the application under order. We have also perused the copy of impugned judgment and order and also the copies of complaint, written version and other documents. 3. It is submitted by Shri. S. B. Yawalkar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant that though the impugned judgment and order was passed on 12.12.2013 the appellant was not aware about the same. The appellant came to know about passing impugned judgment and order dated 12.12.2013 on 17.03.2013 when it received the copy of notice along with the copy of impugned judgment and order from the complainant which was sent by complainant by post. Thereafter the applicant received certified copy of impugned jud...
Sukram Pal Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Another
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: May-09-2014
Nawab Singh, President (Oral): 1. This complainants appeal is directed against the order dated October 24th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Fatehabad, whereby complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was dismissed. 2. Sukram Pal-complainant (appellant) was the owner of vehicle of Bolero make bearing registration No.HR-5AD-1840. The vehicle was insured vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-2 with National Insurance Company Limited (for short Insurance Company) for the period July 16th, 2011 to July 15th, 2012. The Insured Declared Value (for short IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.6,50,703/-. 3. On September 11th, 2011, when the vehicle was parked outside the house of brother-in-law of the respondent-complainant at Jind, it was stolen. F.I.R. No.231 (Exhibit C-3) under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was recorded in Police Station, Safidon on September 12th, 2011. Information was given to the Branch Offi...
Prameela Vs. the Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance and Anothe ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-09-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is a Revision Petition filed by the complainant in CC.148/11 on the file of CDRF, Kollam challenging the order of the Forum in I.A.62/13 dated, April 17, 2013 dismissing their complaint as not maintainable. 2. The complainant filed the complaint before the Forum contending thus:- Complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing registration No.KL-01-AQ-4546. It was covered by a valid policy from 23.06.2008 to 22.06.2009 with the opposite party, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. The husband of the complainant entrusted the vehicle with one Mr.Fazil for transporting and supplying of Ayurvedic medicines he did not return the same. On enquiry it was revealed that he had pledged the vehicle with some other person. The husband of the complainant filed the complaint before the Kallambalam Police Station. The opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that it is not a case of theft. Therefore complainant filed the complaint claiming ...
Saruchi Dhiman Vs. Postmaster General Post Office and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: May-09-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 13.12.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby her complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which she filed against the respondents, has been dismissed, with the finding that in view of the provision of Section 6 of the Indian Post Offices Act, 1898, respondents are not liable to pay any damages for the loss of the papers, which the appellant sent to respondents No.3 and 4 for taking her examination for admission to MBBS course. 2. Appellant wanted to take entrance examination for admission to MBBS course conducted by respondents No.3 and 4. She sent her application by speed post on 22.01.2010, from branch Post office, Khalini. Last date of receipt of the application was 05.02.2010. Appellant did not get any acknowledgement nor did she get the roll number for appearing in the examination, right upto the date of examin...
Budharu Ram Dhruva Vs. Sanjay Tiwari
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: May-09-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.03.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mahasamund (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.17/2012. By the impugned order, the complaint of the appellant (complainant) has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are : that the respondent (O.P.) offered for sale of tractor trolley (two wheelers) Hydraulic to the appellant (complainant) but the appellant (complainant) expressed his inability to deposit full amount at once then the respondent (O.P.) fixed price of Rs.1,30,000/- for the trolley and the facility was provided to the appellant (complainant) to deposit the same within a year in installments. The appellant (complainant) deposited a sum of Rs.14,101/- as first installment on 16.02.2009 and obtained trolley from the respondent (O.P.). He was continuously deposited the installments with the respondent (O.P.) as mentioned in para 3 which is as under...
M/S. Nakoda Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Dhandha Pani Finance ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: May-09-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.10.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.167/2011. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the appellant (complainant) holding that the transaction between the parties, is commercial transaction, therefore, the appellant (complainant) is not a consumer and there is an agreement between the parties. There is a provision for the arbitration proceedings in the agreement executed between the parties, therefore, the District Forum, has no jurisdiction to hear the present matter. 2. Briefly stated the facts of complaint are that : that loan of Rs.1,75,00,000/- and Rs.75,00,000/- for purchase of the machine was obtained by the appellant (complainant) from the respondent (O.P.) and immovable property of the appellant (complainant), which is mentioned in the Schedule was mortgaged. The l...
Col. B.R. Mehta Vs. M/S. (Dff) Dash Mesh Fresh Fruit
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: May-09-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 22.06.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby appellants complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondent, has been dismissed in default. Earlier a revision petition was filed on 23.07.2013, challenging the aforesaid order dated 22.06.2013. Since the impugned order pertains to the dismissal of complaint and is, therefore, appealable, that revision petition was withdrawn on 18.09.2013, with liberty reserved to the revision petitioner to file an appeal. So, the present appeal was filed on 24.09.2013. Nobody has appeared for the respondent despite service. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record. 3. It is stated in the grounds of appeal that instead of noting down the date to be 22.06.2013 in his diary, counsel engaged by the appellant noted down the date to be...
Sukram Pal Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Another
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: May-09-2014
Nawab Singh, President (Oral): 1. This complainants appeal is directed against the order dated October 24th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Fatehabad, whereby complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was dismissed. 2. Sukram Pal-complainant (appellant) was the owner of vehicle of Bolero make bearing registration No.HR-5AD-1840. The vehicle was insured vide Insurance Policy Exhibit C-2 with National Insurance Company Limited (for short Insurance Company) for the period July 16th, 2011 to July 15th, 2012. The Insured Declared Value (for short IDV) of the vehicle was Rs.6,50,703/-. 3. On September 11th, 2011, when the vehicle was parked outside the house of brother-in-law of the respondent-complainant at Jind, it was stolen. F.I.R. No.231 (Exhibit C-3) under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was recorded in Police Station, Safidon on September 12th, 2011. Information was given to the Branch Offi...
Vishnu Ambu Shete and Others Vs. Aadharsh Housing Co-op Society Ltd.
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: May-09-2014
Jayashree Yengal, Member: 1. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30/4/2008, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Buldana dismissing the Consumer Complaint bearing No.227/07 as barred by limitation, the original complainants have filed this appeal. Appellant No.1 Vishnu Shetye, appellant No.2 Ghanashyam Choudhary, appellant No.3, Kailash Choudhary and appellant No.4 Brijmohan Choudhary to be referred as Complainant Nos.1,2,3 and 4 respectively and respondent Aadarsh Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. Chikhali to be referred as Opposite Party (for short OP) for the sake of brevity. 2. The complainants filed a consumer complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the Opposite Party seeking allotment of plots in the layout of the Opposite Party or in the alternative, claiming compensation of 3 lacs each towards the cost of plots. 3. The Opposite Party resisted the complaint by filing its written version and denied all the adverse allegations of the complainants. The OP...
- ‹ Prev
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- Next ›
- Last »