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.
Department of Radio-diagnosis Vs. Brij Mohan Phondi Resident
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: May-08-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.1.2014 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant against the Opposite Party (now appellant) in the following manner:- œ13. In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party is directed to:- [a] To refund Rs.581.13/- to the Complainant; [b] To pay a consolidated amount of Rs.2,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service; 14. The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in...
State Bank of India and Others Vs. Sanjay
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: May-08-2014
S.B. Sawarkar, Member: 1. The instant appeal is filed against the order of the D.C.D.R.F.,Yavatmal dated 23/10/2008 passed in complaint No. 314/2008 granting the complaint partly and providing that, i. The complaint is allowed against the O.P. Nos.1and2 and is dismissed against the O.P.No.3. ii. The O.P. No.1and2 on behalf of State Bank of India is directed to cancel the debit entry of Rs.50,000/- made in the saving Bank Account of the complainant on 05/05/2007. iii. The O.P. Nos. 1and2 shall provide Rs.1000/- on behalf of SBI Arni, District Yavatmal, as cost to the complainant in the span of 30 days. iv. The other requests of the complainant are dismissed. 2. The simple facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant Sanjiv Maske who is a teacher at village Arni took a housing loan from the respondent “ SBI, Arni of Rs.3,50,000/- and took two account numbers as below. i. Loan Account No.- 015593006219 ii. Saving Account No.-01190006219 3. It is the procedure that...
icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. and Another Vs. Sanjay Dh ...
Court: SCDRC
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...
Amit Kapoor Vs. M/S. Omaxe Limited and Others
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: May-08-2014
Nawab Singh, President (Oral): 1. This appeal has been filed by Amit Kapoor “complainant (appellant herein) against the order dated January 28th, 2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Faridabad, whereby, the complaint filed by him was dismissed on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. 2. Appellant has filed the complaint before the District Forum with the averments that he got booked one flat by paying Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondents No.1 and 2. The respondents No.1 and 2 assured the appellant that the project would be completed within six months, failing which the company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum after the date of six months. The appellant also raised a loan of Rs.15,21,000/- from respondents No.3 and 4 and entered into a Tri Partite Agreement dated December 5th, 2007. The appellant paid total amount of Rs.25,18,587/- to the respondents No.1 and 2. The respondents No.1 and 2 failed to handover ph...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sardar Udham Singh Sethi
Court: SCDRC
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: SCDRC
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...
Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Manager (Legal and Hpf ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: May-08-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 14.09.2006 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 356 of 2002, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay the insured amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- with accidental benefits to the complainant together with interest @9% p.a. from 12.10.2001, the date of repudiation of the claim till payment and Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that late Sh. Sita Ram Verma, the deceased husband of the complainant “ Smt. Yashoda, was posted as Assistant Teacher in National Inter College, Dhanauri, Haridwar and he died on 14.07.1998 on account of illness. During his lifetime, the life assured had purchased life insurance policy No. 250498871 for assured sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with accidental benefit. ...
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Mukesh Ranjan
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: May-08-2014
N.P. Kaushik, Member: 1. This appeal by Opposite Party (in short the OP) of the case No.1409/2009 is directed against the order dated 6.7.2011 passed by the District Forum (North West), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi by which the complaint was allowed OP was directed to pay to the complainant Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 14.7.2008 till its payment. The OP was also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment agony along with Rs.20,000/- as costs of litigation. 2. Facts in brief are that the deceased took a Life Insurance Policy known as œJanta Personal Accidental Insurance Policy? from the appellant Insurance Company on 12.2.1998 which commenced w.e.f. 14.2.198 and valid upto13.2.2010. The deceased was 61 years old at that time. He died on 18.6.2008. The cause of death was 10% TBSA (thermal burn along with facial and respiratory burn? leading to cardio respiratory arrest). The death certificate was issued by LNJP Hospital. Prior to this the d...
Managing Director/Manager, Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs ...
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 opposite party (for short O.P.) No.2 against the order dated 10/01/2002 passed in consumer complaint No. 544/1999 by the District Consumer Forum, Yavatmal by which complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the original complaint in brief is that he had purchased Soyabin Seeds from the O.P. No.1 on 22/06/1999 and he had sown the same in his agricultural land and he did proper cultivation of the same. Only 5 to 10 percent of seeds were germinated, though there was proper cultivation and supply of sufficient water and fertilizer to the said seeds. Therefore, the complainant made complaint to O.P. No.2 and claimed compensation. The O.P. did not pay visit to his land. Therefore complainant made complaint to Consumer Panchyat of Arni (Consumer Society). The said society made complaint to O.P. No. 3 Shri R. P. Rathod, the Extension Officer of Panchyant Samitee, Arni. The O.P. No.3 paid visit to...
Varinder Thakur Vs. Sheetal Duggal and Another
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: May-08-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal under Section 27 A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act only), is directed against the order dated 07.04.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), in Criminal Petition No.18 of 2013, vide which, it dismissed the objection petition, filed by Judgment Debtor No.2/Opposite Party No.2 (now appellant), and directed him to show cause, as to why, he be not punished, in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Act. 2. Consumer Complaint, bearing No.537 of 2012, titled as Sheetal Duggal wife of Anup Kumar and Anup Kumar husband of Sheetal Duggal Vs. State Bank of India Staff Association and another, was filed by the complainants, on 30.08.2012. 3. The District Forum, accepted the said Complaint, vide order dated 26.10.2012, and directed the Opposite Parties, as under:- œAccordingly, we find merit in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- Next ›
- Last »