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.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Divisional Manager Vs. ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2014
S.A. Saddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of C.P.Act, 1986 against order dated 31.1.2012 passed by Ld. DCDRF Vikas Bhawan, I.P.Estate, New Delhi, in complaint case No.1664/2008. 2. Relevant facts are that respondent/complainant Shri Suman Kaushik in the capacity of proprietor of Kaushik Tours and Travels, New Delhi obtained insurance policy No.212200/31/2007/1133 for a Tata Sumo Victa LX passenger carrying vehicle bearing Regd. No.DL-IVB-4233 for a sum of Rs.5,07,000/- for one year w.e.f. 21.6.06 to 20.6.07. This vehicle was purchased after securing loan from Tata Motors Finance Ltd. on an EMI of Rs.14,500/- per month. Unfortunately, this vehicle met with an accident on 6.11.2006 at about 1.40 A.M. (mid-night) with a Tata Indica Car No.HR-26P-2700. This vehicle came from Munirka side at a high speed, took turn at a red light signal of Ber Sarai, Hauz Khas, Delhi and straight away collided with the vehicle of the complainant. At the time of acciden...
Branch Manager Life Inshurance Corporation of India Vs. Shyamkala and ...
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: May-08-2014
Jayashree Yengal, Member: 1. This appeal challenges the order dated 10/8/2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Gondia partly allowing the Consumer Complaint bearing No.55/07, thereby directing the Opposite Party/appellant insurance company herein to pay the complainant/respondent herein insurance claim of Rs.80000/- with the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to be imposed on the insurance claim from the date of repudiation, Rs.5000/- as compensation towards physical and mental harassment and Rs.1000/- towards cost of proceeding. 2. Appellant Life Insurance Corpn.of India to be referred as Opposite Party No.1, and respondent No.1 Smt.Shyamkala to be referred as complainant and respondent No.2 Duryodhan Patil to be referred as Opposite Party No.2 for the sake of brevity. 3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the deceased Mohan Sitaram Uke, the husband of the complainant, was working in transport company as labourer. He had purchased an insurance policy bearing No.9745694...
Prabhudayal Kesharwani Vs. the Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Housing Boar ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: May-08-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, filed by the appellant (complainant) is directed against the order dated 31.12.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.414/2012. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint are : that the appellant (complainant) Prabhudayal Kesharwani and Pramesh Kesharwani have separately applied and purchase house under Hire Purchase Scheme and requested to variation in the price, which is still in existence. In the pamphlet which was issued by the Chief Minister, Housing Minister and President, it is mentioned the houses will be made available by the Housing Board to the beneficial according to their convenience in 5-10-15 or 20 years easy installment. The price of the each house under Self Finance Scheme would be Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs...
The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Ramrao ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: May-08-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by the original Opposite Party (for short O.P.) against the order dtd.25.08.2003 passed in consumer complaint bearing No.CC/99/299 by District Consumer Forum, Amravati 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 had taken policy for sum of Rs.10,000/- for the period of 24 years from 10.11.1968 to 10.11.1992 from the O.P. on 10.01.1968. The yearly premium was of Rs.470.60. The said policy was assigned to General Provident Fund (for short GPF) of the complainant. The amount of that policy was to be deposited with the Accountant General, Maharashtra State after the date of maturity i.e. after the date 10.11.1992. However, after the date of maturity, it was not deposited with Accountant General, Nagpur though the complainant made several requests to the O.P. The complainant vide letter dtd.31.03.1993 requested the O.P. to deposit the same in...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sardar Udham Singh Sethi
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2014
Salma Noor, Member: 1. This appeal by the OP of the case No.809/2007 is directed against the order dated 4.7.2011 of the CDRF (North West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi vide which OP was directed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) being the assured sum under policy with interest @ 10% from the date of lodging of complaint till its realization. The complainant was also awarded Rs.10,000/- being costs of litigation. 2. The appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. According to the appellant himself there is a delay of 598 days in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard Sh. Ms. Jyoti Divya, Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Suraj Jaiswal, Counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 4. The grounds for the condonation of delay are reproduced below:- i) œThe order passed by District Forum on 4.7.2011 and the case was being defended by Advocate Ms. Neeru Garg on behalf of the appellant. It is submitted that the said counsel ...
Rashmi Ashok Joshi Vs. Subhash Damodar Tigde
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: May-08-2014
Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member: [1] Executants [Original Opponents in Consumer Complaint No.302 of 2013 (In the matters of Mr. Subhash Damdoar Tigde Vs. M/s. Rashmi Enterprises and Ors.) have filed present execution application under Section-27(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for execution of the order dated 28/08/2013 passed by this Commission in Consumer Complaint No.302 of 2013. [2] According to the Executants, vide an order dated 28/08/2013 passed in Consumer Complaint No.302 of 2013, certain directions were given to the Mr. Subhash Damodar Tigde “ Complainant therein/Respondent herein. Those directions read as follows:- œComplainant to address as to how this interest can be claimed (within the scope of Section-14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) when there is no prayer for refund of consideration but the Complainant insists upon implementation of the contract witnessed by a memorandum of understanding, obviously, keeping it alive and not consen...
Bhartiya Jeevan Beema Nigam and Another Vs. Geetanjali Goswami
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: May-08-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.10.2013, passed by the District onsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur C.G.) (henceforth District Forum) in Complaint Case No.146/2012. By the impugned order the learned District Forum has allowed the complaint of the respondent (complainant) and directed the appellants (OPs) to pay the amount of Rs.78,000/- and Rs.91,000/- as benefit under both the policies and to pay a sum of rs.96,663/- as amount of death claim within two months from the date of order, otherwise the aforesaid amount will be payable along with interest @ 18% p.a. The District Forum, has further directed the appellants (OPs) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as cost of the litigation to the respondent (complainant). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are : that Shri Govardhan Puri Goswami, who was father in law of the respondent (complainant) purchased insurance policies of rs.96,663/-...
Branch Manager Life Inshurance Corporation of India Vs. Shyamkala and ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: May-08-2014
Jayashree Yengal, Member: 1. This appeal challenges the order dated 10/8/2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Gondia partly allowing the Consumer Complaint bearing No.55/07, thereby directing the Opposite Party/appellant insurance company herein to pay the complainant/respondent herein insurance claim of Rs.80000/- with the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to be imposed on the insurance claim from the date of repudiation, Rs.5000/- as compensation towards physical and mental harassment and Rs.1000/- towards cost of proceeding. 2. Appellant Life Insurance Corpn.of India to be referred as Opposite Party No.1, and respondent No.1 Smt.Shyamkala to be referred as complainant and respondent No.2 Duryodhan Patil to be referred as Opposite Party No.2 for the sake of brevity. 3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the deceased Mohan Sitaram Uke, the husband of the complainant, was working in transport company as labourer. He had purchased an insurance policy bearing No.9745694...
icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. and Another Vs. Sanjay Dh ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: May-08-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby respondents complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the appellants, has been partly allowed, and a direction given to the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.2,15,779.98, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, and also to pay Rs.5,000/-, as compensation, and Rs.2,000/-, on account of litigation expenses. 2. Respondent owned a Santro car, which was insured with the appellants, in the sum of Rs.3,33,000/-, for the period from 26.09.2006 to 25.09.2007. On the night intervening 21st and 22nd November, 2006, when the insurance policy was in force, vehicle met with an accident and according to the respondent-complainant, it was completely damaged and, thus, it was a case of total loss. Report of the accident was lodged with the police, on the basis of report of an Assista...
Punjab National Bank Branch Office Vs. Rohtash
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: May-08-2014
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member: 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated October 4th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Jhajjar. 2. Rohtash-complainant filed complaint before the District Forum with the averments that he had deposited Rs.2,75,000/- on December 3rd, 2010, Rs.1.00 lac on December 4th, 2010, Rs.1.00 lac on December 6th, 2010 and Rs.75,000/- on December 13th, 2010 in his saving bank account No.254600 0300039860 with Punjab National Bank Branch Machhrauli-opposite party (appellant) but the cashier did not show the entry with respect to the deposit of Rs.2,75,000/- on December 3rd, 2010. He approached the appellant-opposite party to do the needful but of no avail. Forced by these circumstances, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed. 3. Opposite Party (appellant) contested complaint by filing written statement denying the averments of the complainant. It was stated that the co...
- ‹ Prev
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Next ›
- Last »