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.
Municipal Council Vs. Kamal Janardan Yede and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: May-07-2014
S.B. Sawarkar, Member: 1. The instant appeal is filed against the Chandrapur D.C.D.R.F. order dated 11/02/2008 passed in CC No. 79/2007 granting the complaint and directing that i. The O.P. shall pay the complainant the amount of insurance of Rs.25000/- from 10/07/2006 till final payment at the rate of 9% p.a. ii. The complaint is dismissed in respect of O.P.No.2 iii. The O.P. No. 1 shall pay Rs.3000/- as agony compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost to the complainant. iv. O.P. to execute the order in the span of 30 days. 2. The brief facts leading to the above order are that the complainant Smt. Kamal Janardhan Yede, age 67, housewife filed complaint through the present Grahak Hit Samiti of Chandrapur before the Forum against the O.P. No.1- Chief Officer, Nagar Parishad, Chandrapur and O.P. No.2- Manager, Kabal Insurance Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai. 3. It is alleged by the complainant that the Municipal Council Chandrapur, O.P. No.1 gave a declaration, in a jahirnama that the Municipal Council would...
Haryana Urban Development Authority and Others Vs. Naveen Kumar
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: May-07-2014
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member: 1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated September 17th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Bhiwani. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- œ.the complaint of the complainant is allowed with costs and the respondents are directed:- 1. To pay Rs.45,000/- being the loss caused to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 1.4.2009 i.e. from the date of filing of this complaint till its final realization. 2. To pay Rs.1100/- as litigation charges. The compliance of the order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.? 2. Plot No.604 Sector-23, HUDA, Bhiwani was allotted to one Rameshwar son of Amar Singh from whom the plot was purchased by Naveen Kumar-complainant (respondent) vide registered sale-deed No.4317 dated August 23rd, 2005. Re-allotment letter dated October 6th, 2005 was issued by the appellants...
Chitral Chadha Vs. the Principal, Appeejay College of Engineering
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: May-07-2014
Nawab Singh, President (Oral): 1. This appeal has been filed by Chitral Chadha“complainant against the orders dated November 28th, 2013 and January 27th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,(for short District Forum), Gurgaon, whereby, her complaint was dismissed in default and application for restorationof complaint was also dismissed. 2. Appellant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act), before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party (respondent herein) for not refunding the fee paid by him. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the complaint be restored at its original number. 4. It is well settled principle of law that no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Therefore, this Commission deems it appropriate to restore the complaint of complainant. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is acce...
Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sheela Shankar Dhawale and Ano ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: May-07-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 22/6/2007 passed in CC No. 118/2006 by the District Forum, Bhandara by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainant, as set out in the complaint, in brief is that her husband Shankar Dhavale was serving with the Opposite Party (for short OP) No.2 and he had taken insurance policy from OP No.1 LIC to cover risk of his life. The premium of OP Rs.95/- of that policy was to be paid by OP No.2 monthly by deducting the same from the salary of the deceased Shankar Dhavale. Accordingly, the premium was paid by OP No.2 to OP No.1 till the month of February,2006. However, thereafter, deceased Shankar Dhavale fell ill on 10/2/2005 and died on 11/2/2005. The complainant submitted claim with necessary documents to the OP No.1, which rejected the same on the ground that the premium was not paid for three months and, therefore, the policy was in lapsed condition. The complainant, later on ...
Dena Bank Vs. Sau Sheetal Rajusingh Patil
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: May-07-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by the original opposite party (for short O.P.) against order dtd. 29.01.2010 passed by District Forum, Amravati in Consumer Complaint bearing No.CC/09/179 by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that she had opened saving account with the O.P. “ Bank before 10 years and she usedto operate the said account by depositing money in that account and withdrawing the amount from time to time. She deposited disputed amount of Rs.90,000/- in that account on 31.01.2009. The deposit slip was lost from her. Therefore, she had made enquiry about the same on the counter of the O.P. but, the said slip was not found. Thereafter she issued cheque of Rs.1,10,000/- on 31.01.2009 in the name of her husband and on the same date the said amount was withdrawn from her said account by her husband. Thereafter on the same date i.e. on 31.01.2009 she deposited Rs.45,000...
The Principal, Sree Raghavendra College of Nursing Vs. Jasmine and Oth ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-07-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the 3rd opposite party in CC.229/05 on the file of CDRF, Idukki under section 15 of the Consumer Protection act challenging the order of the Forum dated, July 30, 2012. 2. The case of the complainant as testified by the complainant as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainant joined in the 3rd opposite party institution, Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Thodupuzha for BSc Nursing, after successfully completing Plus 2 VHSC course from the Government Vocational Higher Secondary School, Thodupuzha. She paid Rs.1,19,250/- towards fees to the 3rd opposite party. But she did not get hall ticket. She was informed by the 3rd opposite party that the VHSC course was not recognized by the 4th opposite party, Rajeev Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore and therefore she was not eligible for doing BSc Nursing course and for appearing in the exam. Complainant demanded the money b...
Rajwati Devi Vs. the Manager Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and ...
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: May-07-2014
S.A. Saddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of C.P.Act, 1986 against order dated 3.9.2010 passed by Ld. DCDRF (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi “ 92 in complaint case No.475/2009. Facts leading to the filing of the appeal are noted below : 2) Appellants son namely Amrit Lal has taken a whole life insurance cover policy bearing No.327164968 for a sum of Rs.2,34,511/- for the period 29.8.2007 to 28.8.2008 and paid premium of Rs.5000/- (appellant is the mother and nominee of Sh. Amrit Lal). Unfortunately, during the subsistence of the policy Amrit Lal died on 2.5.2008. Information of the death of the insured was given to the respondent Insurance Company through Smt. Poonam Sharma, Respondent No.2 on 3.5.2008. Insurance claim was duly filed by appellant/nominee. Respondent No.1 through its letter dated 8.5.2008 demanded original policy documents, original death certificate, claimants statement “ form A, Photo I-D, attending Physicians statement &...
Rajwati Devi Vs. the Manager Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: May-07-2014
S.A. Saddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of C.P.Act, 1986 against order dated 3.9.2010 passed by Ld. DCDRF (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi “ 92 in complaint case No.475/2009. Facts leading to the filing of the appeal are noted below : 2) Appellants son namely Amrit Lal has taken a whole life insurance cover policy bearing No.327164968 for a sum of Rs.2,34,511/- for the period 29.8.2007 to 28.8.2008 and paid premium of Rs.5000/- (appellant is the mother and nominee of Sh. Amrit Lal). Unfortunately, during the subsistence of the policy Amrit Lal died on 2.5.2008. Information of the death of the insured was given to the respondent Insurance Company through Smt. Poonam Sharma, Respondent No.2 on 3.5.2008. Insurance claim was duly filed by appellant/nominee. Respondent No.1 through its letter dated 8.5.2008 demanded original policy documents, original death certificate, claimants statement “ form A, Photo I-D, attending Physicians statement &...
Devinder Chopra Vs. Jagriti Devi
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: May-07-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.12.2013, 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 and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant) as under:- œ21. 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 the fee of Rs.45,000/- to the Complainant; [b] To pay Rs.1.00 lac on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and harassment to the Complainant; [c] To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation; 22. The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be li...
Rail Vihar Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Vs. Yash Pal Kochar
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2014
Salma Noor, Member: 1. This appeal by the OP of the case No.372/2007 is directed against the order dated 24.4.2012 of the CDRF II, Udyog Sadan, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi vide which the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the OP to handover the possession of the plot to the complainant without any encumbrance and chages over it. Parties shall bear their own cost. 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 95 days in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard Sh. Manish Kumar Chaudhary, Counsel for the Appellant and Shri R.R. Gupta, Counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 4. It is admitted by the applicant in its applications that there is a delay of 95 days in filing the appeal. The only reason given by the appellant/OP is the case file was misplaced in shifting of the office and the same was recovered on 10.9.2012. This reason does not...
- ‹ Prev
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- Next ›
- Last »